The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-05 Draft Minutes /"1�� MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '�� , . . TUESDAY - FEBRUARY 5, 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * .��: I. CALL TO ORDER ,. Chairperson Tschopp called the meeting to order�t 6:Q4;p t�rt. �-; II. ROLL CALL �::. Members Present: Dave Tschopp, Chair Van Tanner, Vice Chair � � Sonia Campbell ;�� Connor Limont '�°` � Mari Schmidt '.=� :�:. �=�' ,��Mm' Members Absent: None �;� � Staff Present: iauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney Tony Bagato, Priricipal Planner Ryan Stet�l�ell, Associate Planner �°� Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner � 'M'�u Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer �� 1'onya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IIL �P�:ED ALL�lANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. APPROY�AL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the January 15, 2008 meeting minutes. r �It was moved b Commissioner Tanner, seconded b Commissioner Limont, Y Y approving the January 15, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent January 24, 2008 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. HTE 07-71 and PMW 07-2`1�- MAY GARDEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Applicant „ X rf", Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to at�jGst the . lot line between Parcel 14 attd Parce) 15 to sep��ate �te recently approved Candlewood Hotel and the restaurant. The property is identified as 75-048��''aerald Ford Drive and 75-096 Gerald Ford Drive (A°PN's 6 0-076 and 653- 690-077i. Action: z� It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent C�lendar`:=;by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARI�S r�s +n r. Anyone who ch�Nenges any heacing matter in court may be limited to raising only thos�-�issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing d' cribed here� ` � or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning G ission at, � r'ior to, the public hearin g. �'-�,,':. �� ° Case No. �M 35870 - NEDRAC INC. / DAVID CARDEN, Applicant ��, F�e��tmfor approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a .SQ�a`��parcel with an existing 6,935 square foot building into four separate parcels with common parking for sale purposes. ��' Subject project is located at 77-621 Enfield Lane (APN 626- a��, 320-014). a�: r�r Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report. He recommended adoption of the p��` findings and the draft resolution approving Parcel Map 35870, subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that the request was simply a division of an existing building for sale purposes. Mr. Swartz said that was correct. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 Chairperson Tschopp o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. There was no response. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant was present. The applicant was absent. Chairperson Tschopp asked for any testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed project. There was none and the public hearing was closed. He asked the Commission for comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded y Commissioner Limont, adopting the findings as presented by st�ff. Motion carried 5-(��, It was moved by Commissioner CarXtpbe!!, seconded by Com�issioner Limont, adopting Planning Commission Res A ' n No. 2466 approving Case No. TPM 35870, subject to conditions. Mo ,; "r�ied 5-0. g, B. Case Nos. PP 07-10, CUP Q7-18 and VAR 0T-02 - DAVIS STREET LAND COMPANY, Applica�t Request for a recommenda�it�n to Ci#y;Council for approval of a Precise Plan of Design, includirtg,KKa'Conditional Use Permit and Varianc�, to allow a 27,000 square foot addition to the existing Saks 5th Avertue at the existing Gardens on EI Paseo, demolition of the existing EI P�seo Village (located between San Pablo and Lupine L.ane),`construction of a 72,474 square ;�� foot�two-story retail, office�and restaurant development with pa �=structure, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative �.: � Declaration y�s it relates to the project thereto. Subject -' opertie,s arG��ocated at 73-545 EI Paseo (Gardens on EI � � : qaseo, Af�N 627-261-006) and 73-425 EI Paseo (EI Paseo �N Village, APN 627-252-004 and 005). Mr. Stendell reviewed the staff report. He noted a change to the parking information in the staff report. For the Saks expansion, he had indicated that there w�ld be a possible loss of 40 to 45 parking spaces. He had been correcteci today by the applicant after completing a site walk. They would be ��=�'"` losing 27 full-sized spaces and 7 golf cart spaces. Those were the actual �itibers he was assured would be lost as a result of the Saks expansion. On the EI Paseo Village portion, he indicated that there would be 298 parking spaces, not 302. Mr. Stendell stated that a revised draft resolution was distributed. It contained some changes, which were highlighted in yellow, after discussions with the City Attorney and applicant. Staff recommended approval of the findings and adoption of the resolution recommending to City Council approval. He asked for any questions. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 Commissioner Tanner asked if this was a package deal with the 27,000 square foot addition to Saks contingent upon the Village and vice versa. Mr. Stendell stated that the project was submitted as a combined project. Commissioner Campbell asked for additional information about the parking to the rear. As background, Mr. Stendell explained that one of ihe first components staff started to examine when the applicat'��n came in was they all realized there is an over abundance of parking most of the times at the existing EI Paseo Gardens structure. What they tri�d to do was some monitoring there and they also relied ,hreavily on the manage., ent team at The Gardens who have been collectin�ata on their structure fo` �te I�st five years four times a day. He said it is v�i�good data and was u�d by staff. From that data, staff extracted that in the pea. ` eason that high end market is using a little over three spaces per 1,000� k. That was determined along with our Transportation Engineers, Dir - YPublic Works, Planning staff, and others. � ,.� ,:'�; ��- �� . They really looked at parking for th�;��ew proposal�and the Village, and our parking requirements do not dictate ar�ythin�For a mixed-use project like this, something that encompacsses office, restaui`ant and retail. Staff has argued in the past that four spaces per 1,000 is adequate and in this high end level of retail, they are:actually seeing that is a little too much parking. So what they were comf��able with, and what they were asking of the Planning Commission, an �if approved, ultimately of the City Council as well, is to agree that 3.25 spaces per 1,000 is an adequate level of parking for this type a use which, w: h the addition of the structure and the provided parking, ctually 3:5 spa , s per 1,000 because the depth worked out that way. At t 'current level, st ff felt they could accommodate not only what they are lo 'hg across the street from the Saks expansion, but also future growth. '�The�all know that conditional use permits come around and it is nice to have that extra p�arl�ing and they are trying to look further down the road rather than put�t��`�+e ves into a potential parking problem. But staff felt that the level of p�ar�Cing being proposed today with the parking structure is very adequate: Co�issioner Schmidt asked for the existing square footage of retail use in � �- t ' illage now. Mr. Stendell said that the Village is currently 35,812 square � et with a combination of retail, restaurant and some office space toward the back. There are currently 148 spaces. Commissioner Schmidt noted that they were virtually doubling the use of this same ground by going back and up. Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked how close the parking is to the existing residential community behind the development. Mr. Stendell indicated there 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 is a jog in the property line around the existing tennis court. The two shallower sides are 12 feet from the property line. It is 11 feet 10 inches from the property line to the edge of the parking structure ramp, which orienting the parking structure in this configuration allowed them to put the lowest feature toward the back for the least impact. Essentially, in 12 fe�t they have to deal with landscaping, and then around the tennis court they have 15 feet and a couple of inches to provide landscaping. Staff felt th�t was a very good planter area to achieve a very dense lands+caping buffer be�ween the parking structure and the residence to the rear. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the ramps goir�g°'to the upper deck would be at street level at that point. Mr. Stendel!said;that they enter the property and they were underneath the parking deck. Th��nrould come out to the ramps and then up to the second story. CommiSsioner Schmidt asked for the elevation of the ramp at that point. Mr. Sten�ell indicated that the architect could elaborate further, but showed:;a plan of the existi�i� conditions. He said there are homes, the parking lot, landscaping, and�then the wall to the parking structure. He pointed outtheflocation of the existing wall between the properties now. There was also a retainin� situation there and believed that the wall for the parking �fivcture would be�approximately five feet higher than the existing wall to the rear. They moved th� parking structure lower, and he wanted the applic�nt to tell them exactly where it falls because they have �. been trying to wor;,l� with the neighbors to lower the structure further. They have had finro neighborhood meetings in an attempt to make any impact as less as possible. z=; �� tl�;�Commissioner Scli�idt asked if the 42-foot height would be measured off of EI Paseo. Mr. Ste� �11 said yes, from the approved pad heights of the EI Paseo pads. `,,� �A ' � ,°- With re r�i�to;;parking, Commissioner Limont asked if there was any discussion�of��roviding covered parking on the top and falling in line with Palm Des�rt's energy conservation in looking at solar panels and that type � of thing. Mr. Stendell said that all new construction will be held to Palm Desert's standards of construction. The applicant has provided down the °��°� center aisle a parking shade structure running the entire length of the top '�� deck. Required by code, they are supposed to shade a third of the spaces � °g�'' �� onsite. Essentially the parking deck covers about half of the spaces. Adding the top cover really wasn't necessary, but they felt it added to the product. They didn't have any specific discussions regarding any further energy efficiency measures. Commissioner Tanner asked if there was a schematic showing how close the existing parking is to the condo wall. Mr. Stendell said no, but did provide an 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 aerial view. Commission Tanner asked about the distance between them. Mr. Stendell said it is right on the back side of the wall. He showed the property line where it jogs around the tennis courts, said there are carports and landscaping between the two, and based on his observatiQn, there are some oleander hedges between the two properties and a slig�it amount of landscaping on the Village side of the wall, but they�were probably six to eight feet down to the cars. `=�_��. �y. Commissioner Campbell asked about the�parking strueture ex6avation. Mr. Stendell said it started out as approximately four feet that the��were taking off. As a result of the neighborhood meeting, he believed th�y lowered it another foot and a half, so they were talking:about going down f�e feet from where it is now, down, and then putting the deck on top of that. Commissioner Tanner asked if the western Lupine side was elevated higher than most of the other spaces in that condo area�'�r not:,,.ls that parking area right there not a little more elevated than normal?As he recalled, Lupine, right behind the parking, is ele�ated at�und three f,�et. Mr. Stendell said yes, the entire parking area is elevated cur�ently:��hen it stepped up in elevation, there was a retaining wall, and there was a`=:und four or five feet there as well. Again, he thought the architects could give some concrete numbers. Commissioner Limont asked for confirmation that the existing height is 44 feet and this pr�iject is coming in at 42 feet. Mr. Stendell said the existing height at thc�:G��iens is 42 feet. The project here was approved at 24 feet. -:,�� There are�Som,`' o-story components toward the rear. For the most part, ever�thing alor��! Paseo is single story. �.�. .� , � �A . , � C�'rl�aissioner Lir�ottf��toted that this falls under the Scenic Preservation �verlay District. Mr:�Stendell concurred. In keeping with that, Commissioner Limont `` •:how the higher elevations and being closer to EI Paseo fell under it:� X�Stendell replied that the Scenic Preservation Overlay doesn't really sp�ak to height, it requires them to encourage architecture above and beyond,.iivhich really as a matter of course has just become what the City requires in any zone. It doesn't speak to anything other than in general terms ��_ - that they should be requiring more in the way of buildings in this area and he '��' �. felt the project being presented meets the intent of that overlay district. ��:- , �� ` Commissioner Limont said when they look at the definition and the six outlines they've discussed, it says the purpose of the Scenic Preservation Overlay is to designate those city corridors which have a special aesthetic quality, which this area does, and to provide the opportunity for special standards for development in these areas to protect that quality. She asked how they are protecting the scenic quality if they are going up in height? Mr. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 Stendell answered that it is open to interpretation, and in this case, staff is saying that the scenic quality of this project is in keeping with that; the architecture as proposed is in keeping with the scenic corridor of EI Paseo, and she was right in that the statement leaves a lot of flexibility. Chairperson Tschopp asked Mr. Stendell if lights were-;�lanned on top of the parking structure. Mr. Stendell said his initial thought was no, given the proximity of the residential. However, he`-understood that security lighting would be necessary and would be subject to the City's cod�s that are`�n operation next to residential areas in the city which require full cut-off lights and a certain level of spillover is not allowed. If any lighting is pr�ose�d; it will be done very delicately. If that was a condit�on that they wanted�to look at for no lighting on the top deck, staff would bexhappy to look at that. Commissioner Tschopp asked Mr. Stendel) to go��over the landscaping between the condos and the proposed building. Mr.�Stendell noted that typically dense landscaping is not.done around here; h��wever, in this case, upon meeting with the neighbors; Architectural Review, the Landscape Specialist, and staff here�at the City, they'r�'aU come to the conclusion that it is in the best interes�of everybody to�have:this be as lushly landscaped and mature-tree corrid�t`red as possible to preserve the aesthetic value and keep kind of a separation between the two uses. As a result of that, the applicants have ir.c�icated they are very willing to introduce very mature trees into this area. They were talking �omewhere in the range of 20 feet in height coming out to the:site so they r�t�ld introduce the screening right off the bat ,'and not put'trt a 15,-gallon tree and hope in ten years they might have a little it of screening. ��ir intent was to really be responsive and provide some ;i ediate relief. Ttie.pi�� also includes some vines up against the structure and al �r he Lan cape Specialist had some thought that given the � confi ura �she f�that through the entitlement process and through the 9 w� constr�Nm ` drawings they have more than adequate room, which is the most im - mn�art since they always hear them talking about the room for landscapi�ig°'and they have the room here, they just need to fill it with the adequate materials that give the softening between the residential and the comm�'cial project. They were anticipating a very dense row of trees, some vine and some lower plants down on the ground level. ,�� Y'�' Commissioner Tschopp asked if the City planned on maintaining the public parking easement it has on the existing parking structure. Mr. Stendell explained that the existing Gardens public parking stays in place. What is a part of this application, as mentioned in his report, is that some mechanism needs to reflect the loss of spaces because of the Saks expansion. Since there is a public parking easement there and they are potentially changing that, they need to amend it. The City Attorneys have been working 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2008 collaboratively to figure out what mechanism that would need to be in. They were comfortable with conditioning the project that the City Attorney essentially will come up with a mechanism to amend the easement so that it will reflect the current number of spaces as a result of the Saks expansion to keep the public easement intact. There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson.Tschopp o�ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address thee�ommission. MR. ROBERT PERLMUTTER, 622 Davis.Street in.�Evanst�n, Illinois, said he would briefly comment and th�i'i let their archif��t answer some of the questions that had been r�aised. He stated that he is the managing partner of Davis Stre�t Land Company. Their company is a small, privately held developmen ''c �inpany that specializes in upscale shopping centers througho�tt;n � country. They have properties in Palm Desert, Chicago, St:'`L`�s and Nashville. Since 2003, they have been the awners of The:;Gardens on EI Paseo. During that time they had re�lly tried to n�tt�ure the property along. They think it is a very special asset iti yefy special area and as Ryan has said, they've been very focused on bringing in new retailers into the marketplace and really bringing some of the best retailers into the marketplace, so they've been excited about that. In 20p6 they purchased EI Faseo Village. Their intent in purchasing �° it wa��rto take this property and try to extend many of the good �` ele'��tts they felt existed at the Gardens, in particular, tried to marry the �`rchiteC��re, the street retail that fronts onto EI Paseo, the � restaurants. t the corners that sort of become signatures with their ou�oor din�. ��and in this case also office, which is what most of the ,�, �pper.level has migrated to other than the restaurant. So they were i� (�trying to extend many of the elements they see at The Gardens asn��ingTsuccessful and draws to the area. :�,.�. Tlie goal is to bring new retailers into the market. All of the retailers they are working with and have commitments from will be new to the , market and they think will be very beneficial for the market and very -� consistent with the types of retailers seen at The Gardens. They have ;;� gone through a planning process with both the staff and the neighbors ��' as Ryan mentioned. They've had two different meetings with the neighbors where they sought out their comments to try and address their concerns. They understand that the marrying of commercial next to residential is always a delicate balance, especially when the residential is so close to the commercial district. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 Mr. Perlmutter said that the people that originally developed the residential property in his opinion understood that they were going next to commercial property and they took advantage of the grade, which was mentioned earlier. In round numbers, when they started out this hill they are basically going up the hill. They have a two or three foot grade change between the retail shop�and the parking and then there is a five or six foot gr�ade change, which is basically accomplished with a retaining wal) �ight on the sit�. '`��:. In addition, if they look at the layout of the reside�ttial t Me see that they put the tennis courts right in:the center, which is �dj��nt�o the shaded parking which is actuaNy�on'E! Paseo Village prop�rty. But in addition, on the majority of the frontage there is basically one unit that fronts the commercial property. The balance is the tennis courts or the surface parking. Clearly trying to put a. parkic�,g structure to meet the parking requirements has been a challenge. What they tried to do is mitigate and separate as best they cotalt�;;;including after the last neighbors meeting they we�t back and reloo�k'ed atasome of the grades, changed some of the ramps and were able to tower it by about a foot and a half as was meritioned. He said he was present to try to answer any questions. He thought it � , might be better for Gary��empster, their Altoon and Porter architect, to try and, make a 6rief presentation addressing some of the & °: comment `�' d concerns. Altoon and Porter was also the architect on n�� ` �.; The Gard�s, so there's a consistency there. He thanked them. '�� M ''" RY DEMPSTER, a partner with Altoon and Porter Architects, `��outh Flower in Los Angeles, reiterated that they were the ofi�f�architects for The Gardens, so they have an affinity and foi�ness for EI Paseo and liked to think somehow they had some �' small contribution to its ongoing success and the fact that it is now the preeminent jewel in the desert by anybody's standards. They were _�" thrilled, excited and honored they got approached to continue the A��, legacy on this street. As mentioned, the design of the EI Paseo Village is intended to be complimentary to The Gardens and the rest of the street, but yet distinguish itself architecturally and by its composition from the other projects. Clearly, because the projects are owned by the same client, they wanted to have a synergy between the two so it was envisioned that some of the architectural elements, massing, colors, texture, and pavings would be much the same or similar, yet it would be a different kind of experience. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 He stated they were completely sensitive to the height issues on The Gardens having dealt with the City on the heights for The Gardens on EI Paseo. As Ryan mentioned, they worked very closely with staff to make sure they understood the absolute limits and projected lines across from the first phase to the second phase to make sure they were staying within the pre-established enveJ�ope. More importantly, they were stepping the buildings sympathetical,';kwith the first phase to make sure that the street experiertee is retail�t a pedestrian level and the upper levels became subservient and stepped back. ThaYs not a dissimilar technique that's been applied to other buildings. ,;; ;� They noticed as they were driving d, , n the street today ftie ongoing redevelopment of the Daily Grill` building has a very similar composition where the corners are relatively strong, but the rest of the building becomes subservient and the second floor in fact drops back, a similar notion they used on phase one. Mr. DeiYapster said they liked to think they understand t��ssues on EI Paseo and they also liked to think they designed a 6�Iding that is worthy of being there. One of the chaHenges with the site is not only, as Mr. Perlmutter mentioned, the topography, but the relationship to the residential units. Refen''tng to the aerial photograph, he stated that one of the things they�uggested before they started working with Ryan about the parking�requirement is they make a better transition between the street level retail experience and the on-grade parking lot behind. The �` current sit�ation is there is about a three and a half to four foot grade difference 6etween the parking and street retail which doesn't work favorably for;retailers. They like to make it easy for the customers, �asy for pe�ple pushing strollers, and once they get out of their cars, ;� it is a really smooth transition and easy to get up and down. What ��.� th�y�ggested to their client is in fact changing the topography of the par,lci�g�lot and excavating it to make it a flat experience and the tr�sftions would be much easier. That was the basis to their approach to the parking when in working with staff it was suggested that there was a more global, district-wide need for parking beyond < just their project and that they ought to consider somehow mitigating �,.. 6"�°� that. That led them to begin to investigate the raised level of parking. � One of the things they tried to design parking into the project is sort of the givens that surround this in that one of the things they have going for them is topography. If they haven't had the opportunity to walk this district much, they don't understand what sort of slopes there really are, both going east and west and north and south. It certainly worked to the advantage to the parking lot to take advantage 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 of that topography which necessarily began to suggest that the ramps on this garage begin to go farther to the south. The other thing that occurred to them is if they were able to put the ramps adjacent to the parking lot that flank the residential units on either side, it was sort of a complementary use that they wouldn't have cars abutting those residential units. In fact, it would be a transitional spa�� that would be used on occasion, but by and large for the most part it would be unused. That seemed to be a good method of segregating the parking. lot activity from the residential units. Y� �:�; . �r Mr. Dempster stated that there was no denying that tit�ju�position of an elevated parking deck against residential units was a bit hard of a challenge to overcome. Wha��he had an opportunity to do was spend a Saturday afternoon and work�. ' one of the residents who was kind enough to give them acc �to photograph existing conditions and see what sort of mitigatiQn�they could try to suggest. As Bob mentioned, thece.�::was a home w"rter meeting two or three weeks ago where the pr�mary cancern suggested by the residents was the juxtaposi��on of the heigl�t of thisg;parking garage. He took a photograph of the existing_condition. He said that currently the parking stalls abut immediately adjacent to the retaining wall. So that leads to a certaitt amount of noise and activity after hours with people getting into�their cars, slamming doors and talking, late at night, and backing out. The other thing that occurred to them is that the height of tt��cisting sun�shade is really about where they were suggesting th�, : `nd level of the parking structure is going to sit. So they knew instinctively i ' asn't necessarily effecting light and air, it really had to �io with shiel`ding the headlights, noise, and how do they move the parking activit�away from the residences as much as possible. �� He'sshowed a sketch overlay of what they envisioned the sequencing to:be: They suggested that the ramp take place adjacent to the par�lcing lots that are on those residences on the east and west sides of#he property to cut down on the backing and turning and the activity ��-- and noise that goes with parking cars. More importantly, what they've &� done is pulled the parking stalls away from that retaining wall so that . as they maneuver the cars in and out of the spaces they are �� considerably farther away from the residential areas. The hope is to cut down on the noise and activity, screeching of tires and stuff that goes with a parking structure. They were also proposing a landscape buffer. Roughly speaking, the buffer now where the existing shade structure columns are located is roughly where the new edge of the parking structure is envisioned. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 That would give them an idea about the relative space. So the area that is now occupied by cars will be occupied by trees. The thought is that if they put a ground cover in when they put in the trees, they get the benefit of two things. They get to screen the wall that creates the parking structure, but more importantly, it helps the .�;cut off light leave from the lower level of the garage that wifl ii�(uminate that landscaped area. ff"� � He recalled that Chairperson Tschopp asked�about f�ie�lighting of the upper level. Instinctively they kriew they_�vere obliga�a�to provid� a minimum amount of light p� City c�te on a pa'rk��°g s�ructure, whether it is below grade, abov�grade, or at grade. So what they've indicated is that it is their intent to pet�the light fixtures on the sun shade screen that's down the eenter �f��he garage, and so far the photo metrics indicate that what they are�ble to achieve is that the light levels will fall off to a minimum stantlard as it approaches the edge of the deck. What they are t.rying to do is capture any light leave from those fixtures to mitigate the fact that they don't want the walls of the residences illuminated by�fhe p�ir�g structure lights. They're cognizant of the fact that isn't desirati :- ey would center them and the photo metrics indicated that they were less than a foot candle right at the edge. ;��` On the ramps themselves, what they were suggesting is low level lights emb�dded in the southernmost wall so that they're lighting the '� driving su�face, but it wouldn't leak out into the residential areas. '� > Lastly wa n overview of the parking structure. As Bob mentioned, k x�= at the las meowner's meeting and in working with Ryan and Public � Works, the�'ve�`�vised a ramping system where they're now actually ramping on the curves of the ramps which allows them to get a higher distance in a shorter distance, which allowed them to push down the upper tevel of the deck roughly one foot four inches if inemory served correctly over what it was when they showed it to the home owners. He admitted it was a bit of a tight squeeze, but thought it would - > certainly work. The relative relationship to that means that the wall of �� _<.-- the ramp is going to be roughly five feet over the top of the existing `°� retaining wall, or roughly the level of the roof of the shade structure. ��'"' There is going to be a wall that sticks up that they're proposing to ` screen the headlights, because obviously when cars are pulling in they don't want those headlights shining on the residential areas. So they are proposing to put a screen wall which will capture any headlights. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 One of the things he and his client were discussing was whether or not they want to raise that wa!! a little bit taller so that there is some visual privacy as well from the upper level of the deck. They hadn't yet resolved that, but they've got the headlights covered and might want to raise it a little bit so that if you're on that parking structure, your view to the residences is cut off. They had done some sight analyses and sight-line studies, but it wasn't completely solyed. Mr. Dempster thought Mr. Stendell answered most' uestions, but=t�e was also available to answer any questions. ��` ��;� �� . There were no questions. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyane w�shed to speak in FAVOR of the project. There�was one. Chairperson Tschopp asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOS � �,N;to the project. �,��; MS. IRIS FINSILVER, 45-370�=Lupine Lan�;a:stated that she went to the first homeowners' meeting and they were very much in favor of the project. That was at a tim�when there was only one level. They had the second meeting and the ho wners in her opinion were not for the upper level and she was cet�ainly not for it for the following reasons. First�of all, she thought the scenic quality will be mutilated by putting a second level up there. One of the concerns, her major concern, is that her property borders on a retaining wall. She had no idea wha�hey're doing when fiiey're building in terms of digging down anctWmputting beams;in or whatever people have to do to make a > parking��ructure. It was beyond her knowledge. But she was R�� concerned a�out lateral support. � e spoke vt1 r Ryan, who has been very cordial and put up with her .se uestianing about whaYs going on, and he advised her that there is no;enviro�nmental impact report and she thought that had to be done. He`told=F�er it had been waived. She said she was very concerned because her retaining wall, she wasn't sure it could support whatever was going to be done in terms of putting up a second level. She Wtt�ought it was something that should be looked at because once they =start doing the construction, she didn't know if her foundation would � stay in place and was confused by it all. She didn't believe there was �� any actual report on that for her to look at. She voiced her concerns that even during the three busiest days of the year for the shopping center, the shopping center at The Gardens, she had never seen that parking lot completely full. So she didn't have the studies and didn't understand it, but it seemed to her that there was no crushing or eminent need, maybe ten years from now for a 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 double-sized parking lot, but she thought it was going to adversely impac# on the beauty of the neighborhood. She thought the EI Paseo Village is really lovely and that a lot will be taken away by putting a double level parking lot there. She hoped they would do a beautiful job and try to prevent the loss of the beauty of that area, but her big, big, big concern is that her unit doesn't fall ap,�rt.,or fall off the side of the hill when they're digging down and doing wt��ever it is they need to do. She thanked them for their attention. ��;,. �� Chairperson Tschopp asked the applicant to readdress the Co�mission to address the concerns. � ��;: � Mr. Perlmutter asked if he meant�t�� structural concerns in terms of the construction process and foundation. Chairperson Tschopp concurred. �;,; ��. Mr. Perlmutter said he was pretty sure it was independent of their retaining wall and.deferred to Mr. Demp.��er. Mr. Dempster stated thaf standard construction procedures dictate that they monifor the wall during all phases of construction. The obvious re��on is they don't want to adversely affect the integrity of that wall and didn't want anyone to have a misperception of whaYs going on��during the course of construction. It is standard and ;� customary that an independent observer would put base line �,� � informatio n that wall about its relative levelness, trueness and what `�> the measuremer�ts are across the top of it and that will be monitored tlii'oughout'f�e course of the construction procedure, reports will be �tt�i� and filed just to avoid not only any concerns that the residents `havt�a but to assure his client that every precaution is taken to rriake su�'e of the integrity of that wall. They don't want to own any more property than they already have and will take extraordinary . means to make sure the wall stays intact. They've had some preliminary information from their structural engineer and there is a �Y�very specific calculation that is done about the cone of influence F� about where to put a foundation relative to another foundation. It's roughly a 45 degree angle so that the location of those columns that � support the garage will be well outside that sphere of influence to insure they don't negatively impact that wall. Mr. Perlmutter noted that the landscape buffer allows them to grade down. Mr. Dempster agreed. He indicated Ryan mentioned 15 feet, 11 feet 10 inches was really in order to maintain that, stay outside of 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 that sphere of influence, and thaYs what sets the columns with the setback that goes to the garage. It was driven on multiple levels and that's what allows them to have such a deep landscaping zone and that is to stay off that wall. Commissioner Campbell asked how close the fics#-dwelling was to the retaining wall. `� � ..3��,�.-�'.,'. .:":��V'�`�, Mr. Dempster said that the retaining wall is jusJ on the other side of the hedge and that unit is 10-12 feet, plus the hedge, so r�aybe 14 or 15 feet, plus another 11 feet for their structure. ,>��;. � Commissioner Campbell summed up thattheywere talking approximately 25 to 27 feet between the two properties. J Mr. Perlmutter concurred. .� Commissioner Campbell thanked tti�m. Commissioner Schmidt said she didn't haV,� any questions, but did see Ms. Finsilver's hand up. :�� Ms. Finsilv��'thought it was much closer. Using the displayed photo, she t�oughf the retaining wal)was the white line going straight up and .:��, pointed out her unit. She said there's a stucco wall that comes out a � littl� bit fro�n it and then it goes along the side. She had a little :,. pathw�r�-alor�g the side and the retaining wall is maybe 12 inches , � ecaus��er�c�t gets out and she has to keep her from jumping down , �'�, 'nto the parking lot. It's that close. It isn't six feet away or seven feet �m��: a �y-there. It�'very close and less than three feet. It is a very short �'clistance and there's oleander trees that are planted throughout there. TFiat's a major concern and she hoped a study could be done before they start monitoring instead of waiting until they are doing all the digging and then there might be a problem along the way. It seemed more efficient to have somebody, an engineer, do a study and let °� them know what they are planning on doing will support the land next ��"' a��. to it. She thanked Commissioner Schmidt for noticing she wanted to �� _ 9 speak. Chairperson Tschopp asked if the applicant wanted to add any additional comments. Ms. Aylaian interjected that the City's Building & Safety Department takes an active part during the plan review process and the inspection of any 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 construction project. Obviously, high rise buildings are built adjacent to other high rise buildings with less than a foot between them in urban locations, so there is technology for supporting and shoring one building when building adjacent to it. When a project is submitted for plan review to the Building & Safety Department, they have certified structural engineers who review the calculations, not only of the building being constructed, but of the shoring methodology that is going to be used by the contractors``'to shore up any adjacent structure so that it won't be damaged. The pc�ct will also b� inspected by the City's professional inspection teaFn to monitor and if they ��. were to see any signs of cracking or subsidenc��;they obvi��,y would help the process and have structural engineers��bme again Y�a d ci�do any proposed work before proceeding. �a: ` Mr. Perlmutter wanted to make suref�i�y described the drawing. The notch is the retaining wall. That's th' �°taining wall on the property line. The strip to the left with�landscaping is��e 11-foot buffer. He wanted to make sure everyone understood tha their structure is not right up against the wall. There is an 11-foot area that allows �hem to stay a fair distance away ar�d' he) .,'n the construction process. �i. Clearly if they were building right tt . gainst it, it would require a different set of construction techniq[�es to not compromise the wall, but because�hey have this setback, they are able to take care of some of the grading and maintain the integrity. p�ommissionerM . nner reiterated that the 11-foot section is the landscaping, �� heavy, dens, �andscapint��between the retaining wall and the new wall. �� :��, C�airperson Tschopp a�ked if anyone else had any comments in FAVOR or O�POSIK ��ON to t1�,project. �. I��PAT CARNEY, 47-260 Rose Sage Court in Palm Desert, stated th��°;°Fi$,owns a condo in this complex and asked staff to display a �,�.,�. picture� of the whole complex. He said his concern is traffic and �. deliveries. His property is on San Pablo and there is EI Paseo C�ardens there, and Sullivan's, and there are a lot of trucks on that �road right now. His question is where the delivery setups will be for all �� the trucks that are going to deliver food. Because of the traffic right � .� -�� = now, he was very concerned if it is going to be on the same side of b� San Pablo. It would be an issue with traffic and trucks making ,� deliveries. Mr. Stendell indicated that was not a situation they wanted to repeat and addressed that in this application. The applicants designed the structure with a 14-foot clear, if not more, that allows the service trucks to pull in, do the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 deliveries underneath the structure, and pull through and exit the property without impacting the neighborhood as the existing does where they do find large trucks parked on the street for a short period of time. They took that into account with this one from the beginning. So again, they will drive in, the deliveries are made underneath the structure on their property,then will drive out of their property. He said that was a much better situation for everyone involved. Mr. Carney asked if they were�driving in fr�rr San�Pablo. What he sees is that San Pablo already has all the�delivery tru��s with The Gardens. He asked for confirtnation th�f with the new�'°�project they could come in either side and�cit eE#her way. Mr. Stendell concurred. Mr. Carney asked if they would back up to'a�dock. There is a dock right now. Mr. Stendell explained tha#there is a (oad'r� �:zone flanking either side that will have underneath the structure gates t �will open. Service people can come out, take their�product, and go back into the streets. He confirmed there is a loading zQne there, confirmed the location of the ramp, and informed that the services were from the ground floor only. There would be no second story�ccess for fhat. ,.�,, � e Mr. Carn, �° thanked them. � �a � x � �� MR. JOH � : A{�IDREASEN, 45-421 Lupine Lane #3, had a concern „ � �. he had hea�! fro�n one of the last meetings they had with the tenants •- of the building right across the street, which is facing the project, is = that ",,�r are going to tear down Roc's Firehouse at a later date and tea�dwn all the existing stuff very shortly. He asked if there was any validity to that statement. Mr. Perlmutter explained that one of their tenants, Roc's Firehouse, has a lease that has term left on it, so they've been working with the � �`�"5 tenant to try to negotiate an agreement that will allow them to develop _�.� it in total. If they are able to reach that agreement, and they were cautiously optimistically they will, it would be developed all at once. If they are not able to reach an agreement with Roc's, it will be developed in two phases where the two buildings on the left will be developed first, then the building on the right will be developed when Roc's lease expires. A little bit like what is happening on the corner adjacent to Lupine where in essence that restaurant corner is 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 redeveloped independent of the balance of the block. That was probably the best analogy he could give. Chairperson Tschopp asked what amount of time was left on Roc's. From the project opening, Mr. Perlmutter thought two years, so 2011. A little less than two years from the estimated opening date. (Mr. Andreasen spoke from the audience and asked how (ong it would take to demolish each section and build it.up.) �- ;� � Mr. Perlmutter answered that based on the quality of the � nstruction, it won't take long to demolish it. They are estimating about a year's duration. Their current schedule is#o start in November of this year and open the following November. It's about a 12-month duration to demolish, build and tenant.. (Mr. Andreasen said if it was don�`Yin two sections, the neighbors would have to go through that all over again.) ',?:� Mr. Perlmutter said that is correct. l`fie duration is anticipated to be a year. If the s$cond piece is built subsequently, it would probably not be a full year because the complexity is not as great, but probably a nine to ten month,,period. Jf they think about that parcel, it is som�i�i�t isolatedr��'ecause at that point in time the parking deck will alF��tdy have been constructed and the other two retail buildings will have'`ti�n constructed. So it's much more like what is going on �� adjacent to that corner. �� 4 �ThexF �were no other comments. Chairperson Tschopp closed the public hearing and asked the Commission for comments. Commissioner Limont thought Ryan hit the nail on the head when he said that EI Raseo is unique. She agreed 100%; she loves EI Paseo. She thought one of the things that makes it unique is that Palm Desert has worked very -``��" hard;��farting with Clifford Henderson and moving on up through the Council �was in place at incorporation, and moving forward to make certain that 'e were really thoughtful as we developed that piece of property. If they looked at any destination that folks go to that she thinks is comparable to EI Paseo, be it Monterey, Marin County, Palo Alto, Rodeo Drive and the Los Angeles, they go there because it has a certainly feeling and a certain ambience. In the desert here we have a certain quality of life she thought they get by living here and by the way they have constructed EI Paseo. While she agreed with Ryan that there are parts of the Preservation Overlay that 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 can be interpreted, number one at the very top says the preservation of scenic vistas. To her that wasn't really open to interpretation. A vista and a scenic vista in her world doesn't include a building. To go from 24 feet to 42 feet, although she thought it was a well constructed project and she does like The Gardens and thought they did a wonderful job, in The Gardens they have a break-up in the facade. With the Village here,,,there is a variety of buildings which helps to mitigate the fact that they have t�ildings right there. So her interpretation is that to go two sfories to inc��se this height and taking away the variations of buildings to cap it with something like that is working against ourselves. She hoped they wouid give stronger-;thought to maybe not getting caught in a whirlpool of trying to get as much `r'.�tail, office, restaurant as possible on EI Paseo simply�by going up. The key t�o EI Paseo is to make sure they maintain the quality of it. When she looked at the proposal, it is absolutely beautiful. On �1 Paseo in that spot, she wasn't necessarily sold on it. ::�%�;. Commissioner Campbell commented that she has�been on the street for 20 years on EI Paseo and has seen many,.many changes come and go. When everything was torn down where The Gardens located, it was fascinating. She stated that The Gardens is really an asset to EI Paseo. After The Gardens was built, they have seen many other buildings going up in height. Even before The Gardens came, where�Troy used to be, thaYs a t�r✓o-story building, even tho �h the second story,is used just for internal offices. In this area, even thougt�'it looks in the picture to be very massive, as Ryan and the architect explained it, she thoug�it it will have in and outs in the building, and F�this is what they cussed rig�� on the corner where the Brazilian restaurant is that's going to �S orn down. The building that's going in there is going to ` be two-story with r. iaurant on the top, but iYs still going to be very uniform to the�buildings the right now. Also, they do have walkways breaking up the ��.r: bu�ldiri�� To her, it will go very well with the building across the street and also the b ��ngs that are going to be built between the Daily Grill and St. John's, and what'went across the street, the Ralph Lauren shop, it has all the same motif and she thought it would be very exciting for EI Paseo and she was all �or it. Com�ssioner Schmidt said her concern is a little different in that the � buil�iings are lovely, are placed well, and a great deal of consideration was �;��g � g.given to the neighbors and they mitigated a lot of things that could impact `� them. She had a real problem with adding 36,662 square feet to 2.64 acres over what is existing there now and virtually not increasing the parking. She agreed with the argument on the lower parking ratio to a certain extent, but on the Picahna project, did they not ask for some money from the developer� to assist the City at a future time for maybe a parking garage or alternate transportation along EI Paseo? Commissioner Campbell noted that she 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 brought that up at that time that they should have a two-story parking structure. Ms. Aylaian clarified that the determination was that the project didn't provide sufficient onsite parking, so they assessed a fee that can be placed toward a new parking structure. The difference with this project is that the determination is that they are providing enough onsite parking and don't need any additional beyond what they are providing. ' .;��.: Commissioner Schmidt said that the horse is really'out of the barn. She and Commissioner Limont both feel strongly about heig��.(imifs arid it seemed td her to be appropriate to address changing the C��eral Plan a�d increasing the height limit, because everybody that come��n here wants�orr� kind of variance for height. She has been on the Commission for a little over a year and short of a mechanics garage and a few massage establishments, everything is exceeding 30 feet in height. ,Th�y were successful with Wachovia and actually reduced the height of th ;;; ,ilding, which she was very grateful for; it is a very significant comer if the�=`ever build it. She had mixed feelings. It is a good project,::it's a good use of the land, she thought they tried to mitigate the impacts or��fi� residents, but she worried about the density on the street and the kind of btock fe�ling of these buildings. To her it didn't seem in character with the rest of El�,;x seo. It is a string of two-story office, retail, restaur�nt buildings with a lo�of architectural features. She wasn't sure that was v+ihat EI Paseo was all about. Commissioner �anner also had mixed emotions. He has been here since °�1980 and has se'�en a lot of ctianges on EI Paseo. As far as he's concerned, �ey've al!b�e��good changes. He understood that the current EI Paseo � t��, e is a littl� bit dilapidated and the demolition of that particular area will `'w=pro , not tak�` lorig time because of it's condition. That being said, it still tia �I �of characterPvto Palm Desert and EI Paseo. They see a lot of changes on EI Paseo, a lot of store fronts are changing and it seems they ' are going to this new motif. He has total mixed emotions about this. He likes The Gardens and thought it has been a great addition. He just wasn't sure if they were�'r'`eady for a duplicated part just on the other side of San Pablo and Lupine. He knew they addressed the needs of the residents behind �: them. Apparently they have because there was only one resident who voic an opinion one way or the other. He thought the other speaker was �a � vor of the project, just concerned about her lot and foundation, and ��: � ghtfully so. He thought this would be a boost to the retailers along EI Paseo. They are bringing in a brand new product here. He thought the economy at this point is probably a pretty good time to build because it's only going to get stronger. He was just really having a difficult time with this trying to say yes or no to this project. He knew they were going up, but that didn't necessarily mean it was right. Everything coming to them is going up. He would have to weigh it very heavily. The project is very well done. They did a beautiful job 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2008 in the construction or at least the rendering of it. He said they have done a great job with The Gardens. He was struggling with the direction he was going to head, but those were his feelings. Chairperson Tschopp acknowledged it is definitely difficult and that's why they got Commissioner Tanner for the job. On the Saks expansion, Chairperson Tschopp was very much in favor of it. Saks isefrrst class in a first class development. We need to keep them and that expansion is very good for The Gardens on EI Paseo. As far as the existing EI Paseo Village,%he enjoys it over there and will miss Roc's, but he th�ought the EI Raseo Village is tired and needs to be redone and�ght no��if they walk in �here, unless someone knows there are shops insisde, it's hard for most peaple to know they are there. The existing circulation is not,conducive to really good retail. They can look at EI Paseo, it's in a transitionAright now, and they are seeing some beautiful buildings going up. His thought`on this is what we've got here is going to be very compatible ;.with those buildings, as well as very compatible to The Gardens on Ei�Paseo. He agreed with Commissioner Campbell's comment that this would be ��ood addition, the architecture's good, and the height in an exception' that is granted with superior architecture or fits with tF�e neighborhood':�This whole area is changing and he was very much in favor and thought thi`s would be a wonderful addition to EI Paseo and to the neighborhood. He asked for an action. Ac�n: ;��-. ` �� It vir�s mo��;by �Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Tsc: , adop��rtg the findings as presented by staff. �:�. _ �, C`� �m�ssioher Schmidt said she wanted to make something clear; Ryan alluded to the Saks expansion as a site plan approval only. They are approving or not approving this EI Paseo Village development as shown. Only she didn't read it that way in the resolution. She saw that they were granting`�he 27,000 square foot addition to the existing Saks 5th Avenue and ,.. a precise plan of design. That is different than a site plan approval. She w ask��l�or clarification by the City Attorney. Mr. Hargreaves deferred to Mr. dell. Mr. Stendell explained that in this case the precise plan is needed ��- r the entitlement. They are looking at site plan approval only. They are e� approving the site plan and asked if they wanted a definitive condition. This is something that is a matter of course that they do often; they get a site plan approval for a tract or project and at a later date the applicant will come back with a full set of architectural drawings for approval at that time. If they'd be more comfortable with a higher level of condition, he'd be happy to entertain that and introduce that for her. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5. 2008 Commissioner Schmidt stated that one of her other concerns is that this is either sink or swim. If for some reason the EI Paseo Village should not be voted in favor, then so goes Saks. As presented this evening, Mr. Stendell concurred. Commissioner Schmidt was deeply concerned that these two issues were bundled together as it's sort of like night and day. She wanted to make very clear somehow, she didn't know if the City Attorney should address it or Mr. Stendell, but it is a site plan approval oni�. Mr. Hargreaves said they would make sure the resolution is redrafted to make that explicit. Commissioner Limont asked if these��ould be unbundled:�r. H�argre�ves said no. They need to vote it up or d�wn. If they liked one�alf�'d not the other half, they could certainly declar ,�,;at on the record and�th applicant could come back with one half or the'��ther h�f, but he didn't think it was possible with the current configuration to ju ote for half. Ms. Aylaian thou ht it would be a ro riate to ask the a licant. T icall when a ro ect 9 pP P PP Yp� Y P 1 is put together all pieces are necessary for fin�cial viability. It may not be s,� a project they would put forward if it��s just one��ortion or the other. :,�: Commissioner Tanner asked where they were now. Chairperson Tschopp stated that there is a motion and a second;- ��the table. He asked for any other comments. There were none and he called for the vote. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voted no). It was moved ��y Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson Tschopp,,�a�lopti�g Planning Commission Resolution No. 2467 as amended, r,ecommend�ng't�i'City Council approval of Case Nos. PP 07-10, CUP 07-1£i ar�d VAR �7-02,,subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners L� N and Sch�taidtvoted no). Fo�� e record, Mr. Hargreaves stated that the resolution would be amended to make it explicit that the Saks approval was for the site plan only and not the precise plan. IX. MISCEL`LANEOUS ��. None. ��•° X•� °�;` COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES No meeting. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2008 B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION Commissioner Limont reviewed the issues discussed at the last meeting. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt advised that the next meeting�will be in March. : �; D. PARKS 8� RECREATION � No meeting. :��. XI. COMMENTS ':-��: None. �:��. ��; ��.. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adjourning ��te meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. � � `� � � LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST: '�� ..Q� r�w. DAVID E. TSCHOPP,�(�hair Palm Desert Planning Commission ;;��, /tm �,�' „ ��4�,::��`. ' �y` 23