Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23680 RESOLUTION NO. 23680 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF PALM SPRINGS, LLC, AND FINDING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 324 IS IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150-ROOM HOTEL, ANCILLARY COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND FREE STANDING PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ALEJO ROAD AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE AND FINDING THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NUMBER 2006109031 AS SUFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs finds: A. Palm Springs, LLC, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to continue Final Development Plan review for the previously approved Planned Development District 324 and the Planning Commission's failure to make findings of general conformance with the preliminary development plan for Planned Development District 324. B. On December 11, 2013, the Planning Commission approved an amendment of a previously approved Planned Development District 324 for the development of a 150- room hotel, ancillary commercial retail space and a parking structure. C. On April 2, 2014, the City Council approved a proposed amended project to develop a 150-room hotel, ancillary retail commercial and a parking structure. D. On September 10 and 24, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to review the final development plans for the project. E. On September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission voted to continue the review of the final development plan to a date uncertain with directions to the applicant to make additional changes to the project and to prepare and present additional exhibits and material for review by the Planning Commission. F. On September 30, 2014, Palm Springs, LLC, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 of the Municipal Code, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council as described in Recital A. Resolution No. 23680 Page 2 G. A courtesy notice of the appeal hearing before the City Council to consider Case No. 5.1091-PD324-APL was given in accordance with applicable law. H. On October 15, 2014, a public hearing on the appeal was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law. I. The City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the appeal, including but not limited to the staff report and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The final development plan is consistent with the amended preliminary development plan previously reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and determined that such development plan is a "project" under CEQA. An updated traffic study and subsequent environmental analysis was prepared under the provisions of CEQA; a determination was made that the amended preliminary plan will not result in any new additional impacts beyond those that were previously identified and addressed and that adequate mitigation measures had already been incorporated into the project. In assessment performed in conjunction with the amended preliminary development plan, it was concluded that the mitigated negative declaration and the subsequent environmental analysis covered the issues the City addressed, including topics such as land use policies, safety, and aesthetics. Geological resources, noise effects, and traffic impacts during construction and operation of the project. In addition to the mitigation measures included in the mitigated negative declaration, conditions of approval in support of the subsequent environmental analysis and the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration have been included in the final development plan. The previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006109031 is therefore determined as sufficient and appropriate environmental documentation for the final development plan. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05.030, the appellant's stated grounds for the appeal includes the following: A. The Planning Commission did not make proper findings required by law at its September 10, 2014 meeting but continued the project. Following that meeting, Mr. Lawrence Rae/ met with staff and provided all additional materials necessary to address the concerns of the Commission at that time, even though the Commission ignored the directions of the staff at that hearings which directions were specific to them to determine if the project plans were in general conformance with the approvals received from City Council on April 4, 2014. The Planning Commission is now attempting to further redesign the project, over the recommendations of both staff and the Architectural Advisory Committee (`AAC'). This action by the Planning Commission goes beyond what is required of its law. Resolution No. 23680 Page 3 B. The Planning Commission did not make findings as required by law specifically that the project is in substantial conformance with approved development standards. Messrs. Rael respectfully disagrees with the Planning Commission's conclusion that the project is in need of further aesthetic redesign. More importantly, Messrs. Rael believe that the Planning Commission did not make proper findings as required by law, specifically, that the project is in general conformance with approved development standards, and must therefore be approved. C. The Report prepared by staff supports a Finding and determination that the final development plans maintain the same mixed-use character and the same architectural design as the Preliminary PD project, with hotel, retail/commercial, bar and restaurant uses. The basic building massing and heights remain consistent and within the guidelines of the approved planned development district. Furthermore, the preliminary architectural design, which was a "desert contemporary" vemacular, remains the same and has been reviewed by the AAC and recommended for approval. SECTION 3: The City Council finds and overturns the decision of Planning Commission to continue the review process of Final Development Plan for Planned Development District 324 and further finds that the final development plan is generally in conformance with the previously approved preliminary plan development 324 for the construction of a ' 150-room hotel, ancillary commercial retail space and parking structure on approximately 4.1 acres of vacant land located at southeast corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Alejo Road, subject to the previously approved Conditions of Approval and other applicable provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, and subsequent Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. ADOPTED THIS 15T" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. David H. Ready a er ATTEST: �amesmpson, City Clerk Resolution No. 23680 Page 4 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. 23680 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 the 15th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Mills, Mayor Pro Tern Hutcheson, and Mayor Pougnet. NOES: Councilmember Lewin. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. /,16mes Thompson, City Clerk /pal Pb�,� !/City of Palm Springs, California Resolution No. 23680 Page 5 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE 5.1091 PDD 324 APP Following are the Conditions of Approval for Case 5.109, PDD 324 APP: 1) Re-study all elevations, massing, and architectural character to reflect the previously approved PDD; 2) Re-study the corners at North Palm Canyon and Alejo Road, and Indian Canyon and Alejo Road to make them stronger in design and more open, and the massing at North Palm Canyon and Alejo Road needs to come down to the ground and not sit-up on a podium; 3) Maintain the basic setbacks and the staggering of the units on the grade level and the second floor level of the original approved project; 4) Re-study both the public and private garage elevations on Indian Canyon and Alejo Road; 5) Provide complete design and detail on the public pedestrian access way from North Palm Canyon to the parking garage that was requested in the original approval, as re-submitted the plan lacks articulation; 6) Relocate the spa-pool to the original location; 7) Re-study materials and colors, submit better elevations that reflect the actual outline of the street frontage and create more of a contrast with colors and materials to help with the depth of the building; 8) Create interest and depth with the North Palm Canyon storefronts; 9) Submit detailed above ground landscape and hardscape plan; 10) Submit detailed ground level landscape and hardscape plan for the entire site; 11) Provide and submit defining entrances and signage at all entry points to the public and private parking garages; 12) Establish a subcommittee consisting of the Planning Commission and the City Council to work with the Applicant and Designer to insure all conditions are implemented; Resolution No. 23680 Page 6 13) Project must be re-submitted to Planning Commission and the City Council at the completion of the design development drawings including all site plans, full floor plan with dimensions, all elevations with dimensions, roof plans showing any and all equipment, sections at the street, and final landscape, hardscape, lighting and signage plans; 14) Submit an increased/more varied color and materials palette; re-study the trash enclosure on Indian Canyon; 15) Re-study with the equipment area on the south side of the development near the adjacent neighbors.