Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1016 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - OCTOBER 16, 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanner led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sonia Campbell, Chair Dave Tschopp, Vice Chair Connor Limont Mari Schmidt Van Tanner Members Absent: None Staff Present: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Carlos Campos, Asst. City Attorney Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Associate Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Grace Mendoza, Deputy City Clerk Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Request for consideration of the September 18, 2007 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the September 18, 2007 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent September 27 and October 11, 2007 City Council actions. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 07-18 - DAVID AND LOIE BUTTERFIELD, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge Lots 5, 6 and 7 of Tract 25296-5 within Bighorn, also described as 108, 110 and 112 Lantana View. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Tschopp, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08 - A & H MANAGEMENT, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council for: the approval of a Variance to Section 25.28.060 Minimum Street Frontage Setback of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an encroachment into the required 2:1 street frontage setback ratio and to allow a two-foot six-inch encroachment into the minimum five-foot street frontage setback; and a precise plan to construct a 15,499 square foot two-story commercial retail restaurant building including a 36-foot tower element located at 73-399 El Paseo on the southwest corner of Lupine Lane and El Paseo. Ms. Schrader reviewed the staff report and recommended that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Case Nos. VAR 07- 01 and PP 07-08. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 Commissioner Schmidt asked about access to the restaurant upstairs. She asked if there would be an elevator or escalator. Ms. Schrader replied that there would be an elevator located in the rear, as well as stairs on both sides. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a formula used to come up with the $75,000 parking fee. Ms. Aylaian explained that she consulted with the operator of the courtesy cart program and determined that the cost to purchase one new cart would be $15,000 and an operation cost of approximately $60,000 per cart per year, which seemed a reasonable fee. She indicated that long term there will be parking issues in the El Paseo District and the City has engaged an engineer to conduct some studies of feasibility for locations of a parking structure and what it would cost. As new projects on El Paseo are proposed, and there are a number coming up in the coming months, staff will be looking for a contribution that will go toward a City-owned public parking structure. It isn't far enough along to identify a location or a specific project, so it was a little nebulous to ask them to participate in the cost on a per stall basis in a parking structure that hasn't been identified. So for this case in particular, it seemed reasonable to suggest that a courtesy cart be added and the operating costs be covered as well because it really does make more flexible the use of parking areas along El Paseo. The cart program had 50,000 riders last year and has been pretty successful and it was felt that people will be able to park a little further away and use the courtesy carts to get around the fact that there isn't parking right in front of their destination. Commissioner Tanner asked if notifications were sent to the nearby condo owners and if there was any opposition or concerns received. Ms. Schrader indicated that no negative responses were received from the notice, which appeared in the paper and through mailers. Commissioner Tanner asked if this was done recently and if the condo owners were permanent residents or seasonal. Ms. Schrader said she didn't know, but knew the mailing for the radius was done. Commissioner Tanner asked about the rear parking in between the proposed restaurant / retail and the condo property line. He asked if that would be used by customers. Ms. Schrader explained that the plan provides for a driveway and then the actual shared parking was in the rear. She displayed a plan showing parking and pointed out the 122 spaces. Commissioner Tanner said he was concerned, although there hadn't been any complaints yet, about the parking on the southern border. Ms. Schrader indicated there are carports, 35-36 feet, and then the landscaped area. Commissioner Tanner said that shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Limont asked if, based on last season, there was an issue with parking. Ms. Aylaian said there are parking problems in specific areas; 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 Presidents Plaza parking lots typically in season are pretty congested and hard to get into and it was anticipated that a number of the uses being proposed will intensify the need for parking in other areas. But right now, Presidents Plaza has the most congestion. On page 2, Chairperson Campbell noted that Buildings 1 and 2 have a parking lot in the rear with 96 parking spaces. Ms. Schrader explained that the entire amount is 122 total for the new proposed parking area and the existing. Chairperson Campbell indicated that there was no construction behind Building 2; that remained the same. Building 3 is the one they were speaking about. Looking at the design, the restaurant would not be as large on the first floor, but there would be the new building, and that is why they are eliminating parking behind the new building, whereas currently there is parking behind the restaurant. But they were eliminating the parking from Lupine to Building 2 where this building will be built. Ms. Schrader agreed that the current Picanha building has existing parking and that parking will be eliminated. Chairperson Campbell reiterated her concern that they would have a restaurant that is a smaller size, it currently has more parking, and now this building will have 15,000 square feet and they were eliminating that parking. They would have a lot of retail going in, and that retail staff thought will be closed at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., and then they would have enough parking for the restaurant. She didn't think that would be the case, because the businesses will be open because the restaurant is there. Then they have the Gardens, so now if there isn't enough parking here, they would go into the Gardens section and she didn't think that was fair. She could see a parking problem on El Paseo, and during season there is a parking problem in the parking lots. Ms. Schrader agreed that there is a parking impact on El Paseo. Chairperson Campbell asked why this building needed to be extended to the south. Ms. Schrader thought that might be a question better answered by the applicant. There were no other questions for staff and Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. JOHN VUKSIC, Prest Vuksic Architects, came forward. To answer the concerns about parking, he stated that when they did the design for this project, it wasn't their intent to have too much building for the site. The parking lot that is there now is about 20% utilized; he wasn't sure why, but guessed it might be because people didn't know it was there. But the buildings are about 80% occupied and the parking lot only 20% utilized. When they did the calculations, they did them based on their historical method of doing these calculations. A good example was across the street at El Paseo Square, which is where Office Max, Table Top Elegance and Norwalk Furniture are 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 located. Those calculations were done taking the street parking into account. Those are real parking spaces adjacent to the property. This was done the exact same way; the only difference was that they got them for free and now they had to pay for them. At El Paseo Square there has never been anything even resembling a parking problem and they anticipate this to be much the same based on how much the parking lot is currently used. There are a lot of empty parking spaces there. Chairperson Campbell didn't think they could compare the parking for the two projects. They had talked about the El Paseo Square Highway 111 frontage and building a couple of restaurants there. If those do come along, then they are taking those parking spaces away. Also, they really couldn't compare the existing Coffee Bean to a restaurant, in addition to the seven tenants that will be there, and comparing it to El Paseo Square. All these seven tenants are retail and they will be parking and will be finding those parking spaces which he said are not being used right now. Mr. Vuksic thought that with the street parking adjacent to the property, they are parked at 4/1,000, which is the standard. And they have quite a bit less than 20% for restaurant use, which also, although it isn't written anywhere, has been the standard that has been used by the City. As far as those numbers go, they are in compliance with parking calculations. Commissioner Schmidt asked if he remembered how many total parking spaces there are in the Office Max/Norwalk Furniture parking lot. Mr. Vuksic wasn't sure, but thought around 240. Commissioner Tanner asked if any of the tenants were secured at this point, potential tenants, or if he had a restaurant in mind. Mr. Vuksic answered that he wasn't aware of a restaurant. Commissioner Tanner asked if the restaurant would cater to a lunch and dinner crowd, specifically dinner, or a combination. Mr. Vuksic didn't know; if it catered to the lunch and dinner crowd, the dinner crowd would probably be the bigger crowd. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the staff report indicated that the awnings are for demonstration only and might not be a part of the building. In his 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2007 personal opinion, they added a lot to the building. If they didn't have the awnings, he asked what might be proposed there. Mr. Vuksic said he would propose the awnings, however, they would like the tenants to have a chance to design the awnings to suit their businesses and have their own identity in the awning instead of dictating their awning to them. They would still have control of the design as the owner's representative, as they've had on other projects, and they would still need to meet a standard that they accept, as well as Architectural Review Commission. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Vuksic knew how tall the current Picanha building is on the site right now. Mr. Vuksic guessed the existing Picanha building was less than 20 feet. Chairperson Campbell noted that the pad was elevated from the sidewalk, so it looks taller. She indicated that the proposed building would excavate down to the level of the other buildings. Mr. Vuksic confirmed it would be lowered to the sidewalk level as opposed to the existing raised patio. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that they want to construct a building in line with Buildings 1 and 2 along the sidewalk. They would have the same size sidewalk as the other buildings and along Lupine they would have the same size sidewalk all the way around. Mr. Vuksic said that was correct. He said they were within the setback on El Paseo, it was Lupine that was a little odd. They were simply proposing that the setback on El Paseo, which is to the building and planning code, be carried around onto Lupine, as opposed to having a bigger sidewalk on Lupine. Chairperson Campbell thought that was fine. There were no other questions of the applicant and Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the application. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. She asked for Commission for comments. Commissioner Limont explained that height is always a concern when it comes to building in Palm Desert, especially on El Paseo. One of the best parts of El Paseo is that people can actually walk along the sidewalks and see the mountains. It's just one of the best parts of El Paseo. But she felt the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 applicant had done a terrific job with this building. Despite the fact that she didn't think that was a tower element, but a roof line, she thought they did a really good job architecturally, with balance and with the setback, and although she would love to see it at 30 feet, it worked at 36, so she would be in favor because they put in the effort to mitigate some of the issues with the height. Commissioner Schmidt stated that it is a great project and she was very much in favor of it. As she understood the roof, she shared Commissioner Limont's concern. She understood that from the south to the north coming down to El Paseo there is about a five-foot drop from one end to the other. That rendered that roof lower than it would if that was a flat grade from the front to the back of the building going up toward the condos. So it was like it was in a hole. That was the main reason she didn't object to the roof. She thought it was an interesting element and a beautiful project. She did not share the concern that parking is a problem. She thought it would be alright and that it belonged there and looked good. Commissioner Tschopp concurred that it is a very beautiful building, will be a great addition to the street, and will help anchor it. He was in favor. He did have a concern about parking in that there have been many nights he has been there and parking is a real issue in that area. Just as a precaution, he said he would like to see them add an agreement with the applicant that they will work to take care of any parking deficiency that may occur in the future, and this could include things they have done with other projects such as requiring employees to be brought in from another parking lot, car pooling and things of that nature to help alleviate parking congestion in that area. They've given away those spaces along El Paseo and Lupine several times now and he thought it will be a problem, but he also thought the project would be a great addition and was in favor. Commissioner Tanner also concurred. He thought this would be a great addition to El Paseo and will clearly enhance our major street in Palm Desert. He felt Mr. Vuksic created a great showcase and he was also in favor. Chairperson Campbell concurred as well, although she still had concerns with the parking. She thought it would always be a problem, and wanted it to be a problem, but one that should also be corrected for everyone on the street. Regarding the $75,000 parking fee for the El Paseo courtesy cart or the construction of a parking structure, a parking structure would be the best of the two. She could see behind Building 1 there is an area where a parking structure could be built. She still felt parking would be a problem and agreed 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 with Commissioner Tschopp that they should include something to address future parking; otherwise, she was in favor. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that would be conditioned to have the applicant participate in a parking agreement to alleviate the anticipated parking shortage that they were granting the applicant at this time. Commissioner Tanner asked if they should do something during peak season. Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Tschopp both said year round. Commissioner Tschopp noted that it had been done on other commercial buildings in the area. Ms. Aylaian said they typically do something like a parking management plan, and that is if they have a specific parking garage or parking facility. As Commissioner Tschopp indicated, they would require employees to park most remotely. Commissioner Schmidt asked if they wanted a stipulation in the approval that it would require them to build a parking structure in the future. Chairperson Campbell said no, not at this time. Commissioner Schmidt said she wasn't in favor of requiring the applicant to build a parking structure. Ms. Aylaian suggested that the language be something to indicate that at a future date, if a parking issue arises (in the sole judgement of the City Traffic Engineer), then the applicant will work cooperatively with the City of Palm Desert to establish a parking management plan to maximize use of other available public parking spaces. She thought it needed to be keyed into something. At this point there isn't a problem and they don't know that there will be a problem, but would like to require that they cooperate in the future if there is a problem. She also suggested that it would be up to the City to determine whether or not there is a problem. Commissioner Schmidt indicated that any contribution on their part in the future would not be on this site, but on another public site. Ms. Aylaian wasn't envisioning at this point that cooperation necessarily meant a financial contribution. The $75,000 contribution could either be used for the courtesy cart program or toward a parking structure. Future cooperation would be cooperation to implement a parking management plan. If they were wanting specific fees in the future, they might have to regroup and figure out how that would be implemented or based on. Commissioner Schmidt said if it is an agreement that indicates there is a future parking problem, that they would be part of the solution other than on their site, then her motion is okay. But she did not want to tie her motion to a parking structure. She didn't think that was fair. Chairperson 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 Campbell said that wasn't what they were talking about. Ms. Aylaian didn't think there was any indication that would be the case. Commissioner Schmidt just wanted it to be clear. Commissioner Limont asked if this included the $75,000. Ms. Aylaian indicated that it was already contained in the conditions of approval. Chairperson Campbell noted there was a motion and a second and called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2457 recommending to City Council approval of Case Nos. VAR 07-01 and PP 07-08, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Informational discussion of upcoming Housing Element Update as required by the State of California. Mr. Stendell noted that this was an informational item to let the Planning Commission know that the City's Housing Element, as required by State law, is due to be updated by June 10, 2008. He said the City is in the beginning stages of the update and were selecting a consultant to work with us on the update. Staff wanted to bring it to the Commission's attention in case they saw any public outreach meetings in the near future, they wouldn't be surprised. He indicated that the Housing Element is part of the City's adopted General Plan, and the update requires a certain level of community outreach programs, getting a certain amount of input from commissions, committees, and the general public, so the process was beginning and staff wanted to let them know about it. He hoped to be before the Planning Commission in the spring of next year. He asked if there were any questions at this time about the City's current Housing Element and reiterated that this discussion item was to make them aware it was coming as mandated by the State, which must be complied with to keep going with our wonderful redevelopment projects. Chairperson Campbell thought it was very informative and wished it was more updated than 2000-2001. Action: None. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2007 B. Informational item on the CVAG Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and October 11, 2007 City Council action. Ms. Schrader summarized that this was a recirculated EIR and a recirculated Plan that was basically the same as the one voted on last year in June. When Desert Hot Springs decided not to go along with the plan, it was regenerated. City Council approved resolutions that would make the City of Palm Desert responsible for CEQA findings and collection of fees when there are properties that fall into plan areas. As well, there was an understanding that continues the Fringe-Toed Lizard permit. A copy of the City Council staff report was given to Commission. Ms. Schrader noted that the City Council approved it unanimously and asked if there were any questions. There were no questions. Action: None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chairperson Campbell stated that the next meeting was October 17. B. LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION Commissioner Limont reported that the next meeting would be in November. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont said this meeting was the last until March of 2008 and reported on their actions. D. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner Tanner reported on the last Parks & Recreation meeting. XI. COMMENTS 1. Mr. Carlos Campos was introduced. He said he was filling in for Bob Hargreaves and Dave Erwin. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16. 2 2. Commissioner Tanner invited the Commission to visit Freedom Park. He said it's beautiful and there is a very touching monument of a mother and her young son with a shadow behind it,which means he's gone to war and he hasn't returned. He said it was a great park and is heavily used and is a gorgeous addition to the north sphere. 3. Ms. Aylaian said she had two items. At the last meeting, several residents spoke under Oral Communications about a conditional use permit for temporary rentals on Grapevine. There was an application submitted. That application was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant was concerned that it wouldn't be well received in the neighborhood. She also noted that the Redevelopment Agency has recently completed an affordable housing project. It's 36 units with a density of approximately 22 units per acre and there would be a dedication ceremony on Monday, October 29 at 9:00 a.m. She thought it was a great example of that type of project. She said if they couldn't attend, staff could make another opportunity to show them this project,which is really higher density than we've done in the past. She noted that it is two stories and thought it was a beautiful project. XII. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Tanner, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adjourning the meeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTEST:, I SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chair Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm low 11