Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - PP 07-10, CUP 07-18, & VAR 07-02 El Paseo Village CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a Precise Plan of Design including a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow a 27,000 square foot addition to the existing Saks 5'h Avenue at the existing Gardens on EI Paseo and demolition of the existing EI Paseo Village (located between San Pablo and Lupine Lane) and construction of a 72,474 square foot two-story retail, office, and restaurant development with parking structure and an adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to the project thereto. Subject properties are located at 73-545 EI Paseo (Gardens on EI Paseo, APN: 627-261-006) and 73-425 EI Paseo (EI Paseo Village, APN: 627-252-004, 005) SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell Associate Planner APPLICANT: Davis Street Land Company 622 Davis Street, Suite 200 Evanston, IL 60201 CASE NO: PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 DATE: February 28, 2008 I. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council by minute motion, adopt Resolution No. 08'14; Approving a 27,000 square foot addition to the existing Saks 5t'' Avenue at the existing Gardens on EI Paseo and demolition of the existing EI Paseo Village (located between San Pablo and Lupine Lane) and construction of a 72,474 square foot two-story retail, office, and restaurant development with parking structure and an adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to the project thereto. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of this request will allow a 27,000 square foot expansion to the existing Saks 5�' Avenue at the Gardens on EI Paseo and construction of a new 72,747 square foot retail, office, and restaurant development and associated above- ground parking structure. Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 2 of 11 III. BACKGROUND: A. Planning Commission: At its meeting of February 5, 2008 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project. The Commission generally agreed that the proposed project was very nicely designed and would complement the surrounding buildings. The project was approved by a three to two vote, Commissioners Limont and Scmidt voting no. The two dissenting votes reflect concerns about the direction of development along the EI Paseo corridor. Topics of discussion were height of structures and the relationship to mountain views as well as density of development. The consensus among the commissioners in favor of the project was that the project blended with the heights of the existing and recently approved structures in the vicinity and provides a new very attractive retail environment for EI Paseo. B. Architectural Review: At its meeting of October 23, 2007 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed this project for the first time. The Commission generally supported the concept and offered several comments. The project was continued with direction to create more variations in plane change on the building and that the paesos needed to be enhanced to help with the retail experience. The project returned to the Commission at its January 8, 2007 meeting. The Commission agreed that the project architects had responded to the comments very well and granted preliminary approval to the project (Motion carried 6-0). C. Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan: In 1987 the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The specific plan was also reaffirmed in the General Plan approved in 2004. The plan identified the importance of the retail environment as it relates to Palm Desert. The plan covered the Highway 111 corridor, including the frontage roads, the Alessandro Drive area and EI Paseo. EI Paseo was identified as being unique throughout the Coachella Valley as an outdoor urban specialty, retail and restaurant boulevard. A high importance was put on the areas ability to compete with newly constructed developments throughout the Coachella Valley. The plan also encouraged the participation of the City and the Redevelopment Agency to provide incentives and ensure proper growth. G:�F'IanningUtyan Scendel�Wurd Data�PP-07-1o_CC_RF''I'-I.U(x' Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 3 of 11 D. Property Description: Gardens on EI Paseo: At its regular meeting of November 9, 1995 the City Council approved a Precise Plan of Design and building height variance for the Gardens on EI Paseo (Gardens) project. The existing Gardens includes approximately 207,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The project includes a parking structure to the rear of the property that houses approximately 1,000 parking spaces. The City's Redevelopment Agency contributed to the construction of the structure and was given a public parking easement over the entire structure. Existing EI Paseo Village: The existing EI Paseo Village encompasses 2.64—acres including 35,812 square feet of retail, restaurant, and office space. The property is currently zoned General Commercial (C-1� and has a Scenic Preservation overlay on the properry. The project currently has 146 parking spaces servicing the development. To the south of the project is an existing condominium complex. Two of the condominiums are oriented along the common property line and have at least one window looking directly down on the existing site. Between the two units are the existing tennis courts for the condominium project. C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: General Commercial / Existing Retail Buildings South: R-3 (4) Multi Family Residential/ Existing Condominiums East: General Commercial / Existing Gardens on EI Paseo West: General Commercial / Existing Retail Buildings IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Saks 5th Avenue Expansion: The proposal is for a 27,000 square foot expansion to the existing Saks 5"' Avenue at the Gardens on EI Paseo. At this time, the applicants are looking for site plan approval of this expansion only. The applicant has done a massing study to show how the expansion would impact the adjacent areas and, if approved, Saks would return with a full architectural package for approval at a later date. The expansion will result in a loss of 27 parking spaces at the existing Gardens parking deck, however the applicants have provided extra parking at the new EI Paseo Village that can accommodate the loss. G:U'IanningUtyan Slerdel�Word D�taV'P-07-10_CC_RPT-I.D(� Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 4 of 11 EI Paseo Village: The proposal is to completely demolish the existing EI Paseo Village retail development and reconstruct 72,474 square feet of retail, restaurant, and office space. The plan also includes an above grade parking deck to account for the parking need (302 spaces). The proposed buildings have been oriented towards the EI Paseo side of the property, leaving the same streetscape and feeling that the existing Gardens on EI Paseo has. The project will require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed restaurant use and will also require variances (VAR) for the building height and the daylight triangle requirements listed in the General Commercial Zone (C-1). A. Site Plan: Saks 5th Avenue: The existing Saks is located in the middle of the Gardens towards the rear of the properry and has direct access to the existing parking structure. The proposal would extend the existing Saks store 96 feet towards Shadow Mountain Drive. The expansion would result in a loss of 27 parking spaces in the existing parking structure at the Gardens. Because there is a public parking easement over the entire structure, part of this request is to allow the applicants to amend the parking easement to reflect the spaces lost. Parking for Saks 5�h Avenue: The existing structure houses approximately 1,000 parking spaces. The management team at the Gardens has been taking parking counts four times a day for the past several years. From that data, staff has determined that at peak demand in season (February& March) the existing structure is using 3.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leased space. In many cases the structure has an apparent over-abundance of parking, but this insures adequate parking during the peak demand. In this case staff believes that the net loss of the 27 spaces is acceptable based on the capacity of the existing structure and the addition of parking across the street. EI Paseo Village: The proposed EI Paseo Village will change the topography of the existing site to achieve a much more accessible and desirable retail experience. The existing EI Paseo Village has a grade change of approximately four feet between the parking lot and the retail spaces. The applicants propose to excavate that grade change to create a flat ground surface that G:�PlanningUtyan Stendd�Wurd Daw�PP-07�10_CC_RPT-I.DO(' Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 5 of 11 is more desirable to today's shoppers. The site has access from San Pablo and Lupine Lane in approximately the same position they exist today. The ground level parking will be covered entirely by the above- ground parking deck. The access to the upper deck has been oriented to the south of the property, which allows the ramps to be at the lowest point and provides the least impact to the adjacent neighbors. The applicants have held two neighborhood meetings to discuss the project with the surrounding property owners. The neighbors have expressed their concerns with keeping privacy between the two projects. The neighborhood meeting of January 7, 2008 was the first time the neighbors had seen the project with an above-ground parking deck. They expressed the concern that the deck would infringe on the privacy of the units to the south. The neighbors suggested several mitigation measures such as under-ground parking, further lowering the proposed parking deck, and extending the adjacent dividing wall to help with screening. After consideration of each of the suggestions, the architect studied the possibility of further lowering the deck as proposed by the neighbors. The architect was able to lower the deck an additional one foot, six inches and provide a landscaping space between the two projects to create a very dense landscaping buffer. Parking for EI Paseo Village: The municipal code does not define parking requirements for a mixed use project. In the past, staff has argued that four spaces per thousand square feet of floor area is more than sufficient and experience has shown this to be correct. The EI Paseo area is fairly unique in that a shopper will visit several different locations on EI Paseo and only utilize one parking space. In this instance with very high—end retail, four spaces per thousand has proven to be more parking than is necessary. Using the parking data provided from the managers of the existing Gardens on EI Paseo, staff believes that 3.25 spaces per thousand square feet of floor space is sufficient. The intent is to have adequate parking for periods of high demand but also allow for the pedestrian sryle shopping experience that EI Paseo provides. The applicants have provided 302 parking spaces which is consistent with the level of parking existing at the Gardens. With the provided spaces staff believes that there is more than enough parking supply to handle the new proposal, including the Saks expansion across the street. G:1PlanningVtyan SlenJelllW urd Data�PP-07-10_CC_RP'f-LDOC Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 6 of 12 B. Building Description: EI Paseo Village: The proposal is for a two-story building (made up of three separate buildings) measuring 42 feet to the highest architectural feature. The building is set back twelve feet from the curb along the EI Paseo frontage and fourteen feet along the east and west sides of the property. Along the street frontage, the building steps in and out as much as four feet to create interest and movement on the ground floor. The second floor also steps back 12 feet from the first floor to further break up the plane of the plane of the building's fa�ade. There are two paseos that lead shoppers from the rear parking area to the front of the buildings. A great deal of consideration was given to these paseos as they will really serve as the gateway to the project. The applicants have introduced a water feature/art piece at the EI Paseo entry to the paseos, as well as decorative pavers to make them more visually attractive. The buildings offer customers elevators, stairs and escalators to get from the first floor to the second. The proposal will require that two variances be granted in order for it to be approved. The C-1 zone requires a five foot street frontage setback, which the project provides. However, the code also states that corner lots are required to have a setback of two feet per foot of building height and not encroach into the daylight triangle. In this case the setback would essentially make any development infeasible. Staff believes that the architecture and massing of the buildings have been designed very cautiously to keep in harmony with the neighborhood. The upper story restaurants are under a gazebo rype structure giving the appearance of open air patios rather than a solid building mass. Staff believes this rype of use is very complimentary to the EI Paseo environment. The second variance that will need to be granted is for building height. The initial Gardens on EI Paseo was granted a height variance (44 feet total height) based on the sloping of the property away from the surrounding residential and the massing of the buildings proposed. Staff believes that in this case the proposed project is of the same form and feel of the existing Gardens (the project is two feet lower than existing Gardens), and is oriented away from the surrounding residential development to provide the least possible impact. The applicants have indicated that in order to attract the high end stores on EI Paseo the market demands interior ceiling heights consistent with the existing Gardens. G:U'IanningUtyan StendelliWord DataV'P-O7J0_CC_RPI'-!.U(X' Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 7 of 11 Parking Deck: As mentioned previously, to the rear of the building is an above-ground parking deck that will accommodate the parking for the project. The structure is set back thirty feet along both Lupine Lane and San Pablo Avenue. The rear property line along the adjacent condominiums to the south makes a jog around the existing tennis courts. The parking deck is set back fifteen feet from the property line in the area adjacent to the tennis courts and is set back eleven feet-ten inches from the rear property line adjacent to the existing condominiums. C. Architecture: The applicant has designed a two-story multi-tenant retail environment whose facade will serve as a blank canvas for the individual character developed to reflect each of the prospective end users. The buildings are a contemporary design utilizing steel awnings and trellises to accent the architecture. The EI Paseo storefronts are proposed to allow the tenants flexibility in design. As spaces are leased, the owner will allow each tenant storefront to take on its own unique identity. This same concept was used at the existing Gardens and has been very successful. The building steps back twelve feet from the first story to the second and will be flanked on both corners by second story restaurants with outdoor patio dining. The outdoor patios are covered with a decorative gazebo and complimenting with trellis work. V. ANALYSIS: A. Project Data: The following is a table comparing the proposed project with the standards of the General Commercial Zone. ��n� GENER " QMMER�!!� n, , STAN��I , ,;: � , . • � ZC� ,�, ". ., _ . n ` ECT r M Front Setback 5' 12' Rear Yard Setback 5' 11'10' min. Side Yard Setbacks 5' �4' Hei ht 30' 42' Parkin 302* 302* * The parking ordinance does not specifically list requirements for mixed use projects such as this. The parking ordinance has language that allows projects flexibility through the entitlement process. G:�Planning�Ryan Stenciell\Wurd Data�PP�07-10_CC_RP'f-I.DO(' Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 8 of 11 B. Findings for Approval: Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed location of the project is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is located in a C-1, General Commercial zone and is covered by the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan which encourages the retail/restaurant and second story office enhancement of the El Paseo Corridor. The proposed retail, restaurant and office project is in accordance with the district in which it is located. 2. The proposed location of the project and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The redeve/opment will improve the aesthetics and overall quality of the area and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the viciniry or be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare of the City. Conditional Use Permits will be required for the restaurant uses to assure that they are operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the surrounding uses. 3. The proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. The project complies with all standards of the C-1, General Commercial zone, with exception to the recommended variances. The project as conditioned complies with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed project complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Community Commercial and also the goals outlined in the Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan of keeping the EI Paseo area as a unique, pedestrian-oriented high-end retail shopping area. G:V'IanningViyan Stendel�Word DataV'P-07•10_CC_RPT-I.DOC' Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 9 of 11 Variance: 1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficu(ty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. DavliQht triangle: Given that the height of the building is proposed to be 42; requiring the property owner to comply with a 2:1 setback ratio would create an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives codified in the Zoning Ordinance and inconsistent with other properties on the EI Paseo corridor. Every two-story building on EI Paseo does not comply with the Code Section. Buildinq Height: The goals and objectives of the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan are to continue to bring very high-end shops to EI Paseo district. In order to achieve this goal the strict interpretation of the height requirements in the General Commercial Zone create an unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the General Plan and the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The very high- end retail market demands the heights being proposed as illustrated by the existing Gardens on EI Paseo. 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the properry that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The intended use of the property is consistent with the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan. The site size and geometry preclude the project from meeting the requirements of the daylight triangle requirements. The superior architectura! 6uilding design and massing of the buildings will serve as mitigation of building height. 3. That strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Davlight triangle: The strict and literal enforcement of C-1 Code Section 25.28.060 wou/d deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by the owners of ofher properties in the EI Paseo district. While the subject property is not technically unusual as compared with other properties along EI Paseo, conformance to the 2:i ratio street G:�PlanningViyanStendel�WurdDataV'P-07-I�CC_RNI'-I.DOC Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 10 of 11 frontage setback ratio is not applicable to any property fronting EI Paseo and would be inconsistent with economic and architectural intent for this district. Where other properties have been granted variances, successful and attractive two story businesses along EI Paseo have been constructed. It would appear that not granting the variance would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by other property owners along EI Paseo. These exceptional circumstances make it unfeasible to deny the variance. Building HeiQht: The strict and literal enforcement of C-1 Code Section 25.28.060 would deny the applicant privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the EI Paseo district Where other properties have been granted a variance in the past architecture and massing of the buildings have been the mitigating factor. 4. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the viciniry. The proposed projecf variances relate to building height and daylight triangle requiremenfs. The proposed variances are consistent with developments in the area which have shown no adverse effects on public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvemenfs in the vicinity. The variances will help preserve the overall aesthetics and retail environment of the EI Paseo area. VI. CONCLUSION: The shopping experience is an important component for the continued success of EI Paseo. The EI Paseo area has identified itself as a unique pedestrian oriented shopping district. The continued success depends on creative design and architecture of the buildings being approved. The Saks expansion and the redevelopment of the EI Paseo Village will contribute to the overall streetscape of EI Paseo and provide more pedestrian oriented shopping as well as second story dining and office options. G:�PlanningVtyan Stendcl�Wurd Data�PP-07-10_CC_RP7'-I.DOC Staff Report PP 07-10, CUP 07-18 & VAR 07-02 February 28, 2008 Page 11 of 11 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment that resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project site. (See attachments). The site was analyzed based on the attributes and requirements of an infill project. Therefore, mitigations are those regularly associated with development of this type and are listed in the attached Initial Study. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Correspondence from Departments D. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (inciuding visuai simuiations&tratfic study) E. Plans and Exhibits Submitted By: Department Head: .�.-�----� _..--� �. _.� _�.. .a,> . _ �,,,,�.----� �.��%=;y' `'� Ryan Stendell `Lauri Aylaian �-- Associate Planner Director, Community Development * Approved the project, subject to the drafting a App1'OVaI: development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and to the Mayor for her signature, incorporating conditions specified in the staff � report along with the following: 1) Height i�`��_��-r�r�.c(�/ of 36-40 feet with 42 feet for the parapets on Homer Croy either end only; 2) second-story foliage ACM, Development Services to be appropriate for the application; 3) parking structure with a ratio of 3.25 spaces per 1,000 and full parking reciprocity between the structures at The Gardens and E1 Paseo Village; 4) designated preferential hybrid parking spaces; 5} special attention to the pedestrian friendly Carlos Orteg second-story terraces; 6) eamest attempt at LEED City Manager Certification for as much of the projsct as is feasible. 4-1 (Finerty NO) CZTY COUNCSL TIDN: — A�PRQV� 7� DENIED -- F.��Cb�TVS� OTFiER ��>R�:x�r��I��G ��,T� �.., Y,�.�m , �.�:�a I'eI t�C�S(`YI, �� i � _ar.Y��t15ZY�...� _� - 2�IO�;�� -------- -- �.3SEN�': _...�__ _,— ABSTAIN:���„, _ VER�FIED ��i�ng i aei� ��o�-io_cc_a�r-i.noc �u Original on File wi City Clerkray ����CE;'