Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
REVISED - PC Agenda 4-19-22
CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2022 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not appearing on the agenda may address the Planning Commission via the Zoom session at this point by giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for a report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. THREE OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING Option 1 – To Participate by email: 1. Send your comments by email to: planning@cityofpalmdesert.org. Emails received by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting will be made part of the record and distributed to the Planning Commission. This method is encouraged because it will give the Commissioners the opportunity to reflect upon your input. Emails will not be read aloud. Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 361, the Planning Commission may be conducted via teleconference/virtual meeting and there will be no in-person public access to the meeting location. AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19, 2022 2 Option 2 – To Participate and Provide Verbal Comments by Using Your Internet, then click on “Launch Meeting.” 1. Click the link: https://palmdesert.zoom.us/j/84739707419 Option 3 – To Listen and Provide Verbal Comments Using Your Telephone 1. Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): Telephone US: +1 669 219 2599 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 213 338 8477 or +1 602 753 0140 or +1 971 247 1195 or +1 253 215 8782 2. Enter the Webinar ID: 847 3970 7419 followed by #. 3. Indicate that you are a participant by pressing # to continue. 4. You will hear audio of the meeting in progress. Remain on the line if the meeting has not yet started. 5. During the meeting, press *9 to raise your hand to be added to the queue to provide public comment. When it is your turn, City staff will announce your name or phone number. To mute or unmute your phone during the meeting, press *6. LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES Staff reports and documents for agenda items are available for public inspection at the Planning/Land Development Division and on the City’s website: www.cityofpalmdesert.org. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 2022. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment to meet the setback requirements within the Dolce community (APNs 694-150-027 and 694-150-028). Case No. PMW22-0003 (Heitec Consulting, Palm Springs, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW22-0003. AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19, 2022 3 C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment to meet the setback requirements within the Dolce community (APNs 694-140-024 and 694-140-025). Case No. PMW22-0004 (Heitec Consulting, Palm Springs, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW22-0004. D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment within the BIGHORN Golf Club (APNs 771-240-026, 771- 240-051, and 771-280-073). Case No. PMW22-0005 (McGee Surveying, Inc, Indio, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW22-0005. E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit 16-394 for The Sands multi-family housing development on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Case No. PP/CUP 16-394 (Bravo Gardens, LLC, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year (until April 26, 2023) time extension for Case No. PP/CUP 16-394. F. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve an 18-month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 37234 for the MCP Specific Plan that subdivides 32+ acres into four (4) planning areas east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway Drive. Case No. TPM 37234 (MC Properties, LLC, Encinitas, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve an 18-month (until September 12, 2023) time extension for Case No. TPM 37234. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19, 2022 4 A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.10 (Residential Districts) and Chapter 25.68 (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission). Case No. ZOA22-0003 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2810, recommending approval to the City Council for Case No. ZOA22- 0003. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Zoning) relating to land uses. Case No. ZOA22-0004 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2811, recommending approval to the City Council for Case No. ZOA22- 0004. X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CULTURAL ARTS COMMITTEE B. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION XII. REPORTS AND REMARKS XIII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 14th day of April 2022. Monica O’Reilly Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2022 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair John Greenwood called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chair John Greenwood Vice-Chair Nancy DeLuna Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Also Present: Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney Eric Ceja, Deputy Director of Development Services Rosie Lua, Planning Manager Nick Melloni, Associate Planner Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ron Gregory led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Deputy Director of Development Services Eric Ceja summarized pertinent City Council actions from the meeting of March 10, 2022. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2022 2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2022. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive east of the Riverside County Sheriff Station (APNs 694-310-006 and 694-310-002). Case No. PMW21- 0009 (MSA Consulting, Inc, Rancho Mirage, California). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW21-0009. Upon a motion by Commissioner Pradetto, seconded by Commissioner Holt and a 4- 1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: Gregory). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to adopt a resolution under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approval of a Precise Plan (PP) for a 330- unit apartment development located on Parcel 7 of Parcel Map 36792 at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Technology Drive. Case No. PP21-0009 (Apogee Professional Services, Omaha, Nebraska, Applicant). Note, the staff report(s) and Zoom video of the meeting are available on the City’s website. Click on the following link to access: www.planning-commission- information-center. Vice-Chair Nancy DeLuna disclosed that the company she works for is in a business relationship with the City involving housing in the area and recused herself. Commissioner Gregory also disclosed that the company he works for is involved with the proposed project and recused himself. They both left the meeting at this point (6:07 p.m.). PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2022 3 Associate Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report on the proposed project and offered to answer any questions. Staff responded to a question regarding the construction of Technology Drive along the project. Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. Mr. Bob Dean, the applicant with Apogee Professional Services, Omaha, Nebraska, thanked the Planning Commission and City staff for the opportunity to work with the City. They look forward to being a part of the community. Mr. Keith McCloskey, the architect with KTGY Architecture + Planning, Santa Monica, California, described their thought process on the project design. Mr. Russell MacDonald, the landscape architect with HSA Design Group, Palm Desert, California, described the landscape design for the project. The applicant answered Planning Commission questions regarding the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) comments and recommendations, roof drains, egress and ingress within the site and points of entry, a mass transit stop, and solar panel integration. With no further testimony offered, Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing closed. The Commission felt that the proposed project is in a better location for the high-density and building heights. They also liked the architecture and landscape design. Chair Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2809, approving Case No. PP21-0009. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and was carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: DeLuna and Gregory). Commissioners DeLuna and Gregory did not return to the meeting. XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. CULTURAL ARTS COMMITTEE Commissioner Lindsay Holt reported that the Committee would have a special meeting on March 16 to discuss the new El Paseo Exhibition. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2022 4 B. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Mr. Ceja reported that the City is working on a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of a park, which is part of the Millennium Specific Plan. XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS None XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Greenwood adjourned the meeting at 6:19 p.m. JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR ATTEST: MARTĺN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Martín Alvarez, Director of Development Services From: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Parcel Map Waiver No. 22-0003 The City Surveyor reviewed the above-referenced Parcel Map Waiver (PMW) for Dolce Lots 27 (APN: 694-150-027) and 28 (APN: 694-150-028) and found the PMW to be technically correct. PMW22-0003: Applicant: Heitec Consulting 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Owner: Lennar Homes of California, LLC 980 Montecito Drive #300 Corona, CA 92879 EXHiaT 'A LEa4L DeESCR1PRN P.M. W. 22-0003 PARCEL 'A" THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN TRACT NO. 31071, FILED IN BOOK 396, PAGES 75 THROUGH 81, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 27 OF SAID TRACT NO. 31071, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 28 OF SAID TRACT NO. 31071, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 27; THENCE SOUTH 29'37'53" EAST. 120.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 28; THENCE SOUTH 89'53'30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 28, 12.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 27; THENCE NORTH 24'03'45" WEST, 115.14 FEET THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 27 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINS 6,328 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED, IS HEREBY MADE A PART HEREOF. R �l 04111 /22 DAVID HACKER, PLS 5128 DATE HEITEC 777E East [azCan pWay Suite 309 777 East Taflquilr Canyon Way Pafm Springs, California 92262 C 0 N S U L T I N G Phone: 760.340.9060 4111122 210404—LL4 LOTS 27-28.DWG EXHIEIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION P.A4. W. 22-0003 PARCEL B THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN TRACT NO, 31071, FILED IN BOOK 396, PAGES 75 THROUGH 81, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 28 OF SAID TRACT NO. 31071, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 28 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 28; THENCE SOUTH 29'37"53" EAST, 120.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 28; THENCE SOUTH 89'5330" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 28, 12.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 27, THENCE NORTH 24'03'45" WEST, 1 15. 74 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 28 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 8,300 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED, IS HEREBY' MADE A PART HEREOF L 0419 1 122 DAVID HACKER, PLS 5128 DATE ram: yam. HEITEC 777E East i4eCCny.c_ y Suite 309 777 East Tah uilx Canyon Wa Palm Springs, California 92262 C❑ N 5 U L T I N G Phone: 7603409060 11122 210404-? LA LOTS 27-28.OWG 4/13/2022 ADJUSTED CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Martín Alvarez, Director of Development Services From: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Parcel Map Waiver No. 22-0004 The City Surveyor reviewed the above-referenced Parcel Map Waiver (PMW) for Dolce Lots 63 (APN: 694-140-024) and 64 (APN: 694-140-025) and found the PMW to be technically correct. PMW22-0003: Applicant: Heitec Consulting 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Owner: Lennar Homes of California, LLC 980 Montecito Drive #300 Corona, CA 92879 fff PARCEL "A" THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPER7Y LOCATED IN TRACT NO, 31077, FILED IN BOOS 396, PAGES 75 THROUGH 81, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 1N THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 64 OF SAID TRACT" NO, 31071, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 64 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LHE EASTERLY 1.50 FEET, MEASURED PERPENDICULARLY, OF SAID LOT 64, CONTAINS 4,450 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. EXHIBIT "B"ATTACHED, IS HEREBY MADE A PART HEREOF. ti 04/11/22 DAVID HACKER, PLS 5128 DATE HEITEC www.lie Vte.Inc yonWey Suite 309 777 East Tahquit: Canyon Way Palm Springs. California 92262 C❑ N 5 LJ L T I N G Phone: 760.340.9060 4111122 210404-LLA LOTS 63-64_DWG fff PARCEL "B " THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN TRACT NO, 31071, FILED IN BOOK 396, PAGES 75 THROUGH 81. INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 1N THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 63, OF SAID TRACT NO. 31071, TOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY 1.50 FEET, MEASURED PERPENDICULARLY, OF LOT 64 OF SAID TRACT NO, 37071. CONTAINS 5,000 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. EXHIBIT "6"ATTACHED, 1S HEREBY MADE A PART HEREOF. 04/11/22 DAVID HACKER, PLS 5128 DATE HEITEC w w. Ea5tT uI.inc.cnm Suite 309 777East Tahquit: Canyon Way Palm Springs. California 92262 �� C❑ N SULTI N G Phone: 760.340.9060 4111122 210404-LLA LOTS 63-64_DWG 4/13/2022 ADJUSTED CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Martin Alvarez, Director of Development Services From: Nick Melloni, Associate Planner Date: April 19, 2022 Subject: Parcel Map Waiver No. 22-0005 The subject Parcel Map Waiver (PMW) is a request for a lot line adjustment between three lots located at Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 771-240-026, 771-240-051, and 771- 280-073 within the BIGHORN Golf Club. The proposal will adjust lot boundaries to transfer 997 square feet of land area from the existing golf course to a residential parcel. The PMW has been reviewed per Government Code Section 66412(d): • The lot line adjustment is occurring between fewer than four parcels. • The parcels affected are adjoining. • The new parcels conform to the local General Plan and zoning requirements. The City Surveyor reviewed the above-referenced PMW and found the exhibits to be technically correct. PMW22-0005: Applicant: Ken &Barbara Fasola c/o: McGee Surveying, Inc. 45100 Golf Center Parkway, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 Owner: BIGHORN Golf Club 255 Palowet Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 EXHIBIT °°A" P.M.W. 22-0005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRANSFER PARCEL (FROM LOT "G" , TRACT NO, 25720-4 TO PARCEL I, PMW 98-26) THAT PORTION OF LOT "G" OF TRACT NO.27520-4, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 270, PAGES 103 THROUGH 1 I4, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP, P.M.W. 98-26. RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1999 AS INST. NO. 065775, 1N THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THENCE S 84°05'22" W. A DISTANCE OF 37.38 FEET; THENCE S 42°02'41" W. A DISTANCE OF 45.85 FEET; THENCE S 67003'21" W, A DISTANCE OF 16.76 FEET; THENCE S 49°42'07" W, A DISTANCE OF 25.40 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE N 34034' 10" W, A DISTANCE OF 11.99 FEET; THENCE N 55°00'20" E, A DISTANCE OF 98.97 FEET; THENCE S 78031' 12" E, A DISTANCE OF 29.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRANSFER PARCEL CONTAINS 997.2 S.F. ( 0.023 AC. MORE OR LESS.) FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS. CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS. OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD, IF ANY. PAGE I ❑F 2 EXHIBIT "A" P.M.W. 22-0005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A (ADJUSTED PARCEL 1, PMW 98-26) PARCEL 1 OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP, P,M.W. 98-26, RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1999 AS INST. NO. 065775, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT "G" OF TRACT NO.27520-4, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 270, PAGES 103 THROUGH 114, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAI❑ PARCEL 1; THENCE S 84605'22" W, A DISTANCE OF 37.38 FEET; THENCE S 42002'41" W, A DISTANCE OF 45.85 FEET; THENCE S 67003'21" W, A ❑ISTANCE OF 16.76 FEET; THENCE S 49042'07" W, A DISTANCE OF 25.40 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE N 34034' 10" W, A DISTANCE OF 11.99 FEET; THENCE N 55°00'20" E, A DISTANCE OF 98.97 FEET; THENCE S 7803I' l2" E, A ❑ISTANCE OF 29.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL "A" CONTAINS 19.015.2 S.F. ( 0.437 AC. MORE OR LESS.) FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS, OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD, IF ANY. 1 Sy ISsm 1 /,A a 2 L. I RE Mayne A. McGee L.S. 5479 �Q+ Expires 9/30/2022 PAGE 2 OF 2 i xz Date NO TES THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS OF RECORD DELINEATED AND REFERENCED ON THE UNDERL PING MAP, OR THERE MA Y BE EASEMENTS WITHIN THE AREA BEING AD,VISTED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT TNA T COULD ENCUMBER SAID PARCEL HEREIN, THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM RECORD DA TA AND DOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON. EXHIBIT "B n 44) 0 20 40 P.M. W. 22-0005 { IN FEET } 1 inch = 40 ft, LOT G" TRACT NO. 27520-4 M.B, 270/103-114 N34'34'10'W 11, 99' (N19!50 :39 °W) (2t 96) (NJI V5 51 E) (5.27) (N87'4D'52'E) (4.54) A. MC' ��L IVO. 5479 Exp, 9/30/22 9-Cf CALF � ry TRANSFER PARCEL= 997 S. F f 7' s COR. PCL.I P.O. TRANSFER PARCEL & N.E. COR, PCL.1 LOT LINE TO BE ELIMINA TED PARCEL I PMW 98-26 INST. 065775 REC. 211911999 P* R,318.00` 5' PUE L:=f 297 3 46'38" l r — — — c LOT �, — �y�S PLACE TRACT NO. 26068 � R1VA S M B. 23017 79 LINE TABLE L 1 549 42'07'W 25.40' L2 S67 03'21 "W 16, 76' L3 S42D2'41 "W 45.85' L4 584'0522"W 37.38' LEGEND: ADJUSTED LOT LINE EX. LOT LINE TO REMAIN EXIST. EASEMENT — — — ELIMINATED LOT LINE { RECORD DATA PER PMW 91-12 t ] RECORD PER TRACT NO. 26068 M.B. 230/71-78 ADJUSTMENT PLA T- CITY OF PALM DESERT PC 6 L WA ME A. MCGEE DA TE L.S. 5479 EXP. 09130122 APPLICANT KEN & BARBARA FASOLA C/O MCGEE SURVEYING, INC 45--100 GOLF CENTER PKWY, STE, G INDIO, CA 92201 APPROVED BY: 3 2r12o22 CHRISTOPHER ALHER TS DA TE ACTING CITY SURVEYOR L. S. 8508 STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: April 19, 2022 PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a request to approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit 16-394 for The Sands multi-family housing development on the south side of Hovley Lane East and east of Portola Avenue. Recommendation By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit (PP/CUP) 16-394, until April 26, 2023. Property Description On April 26, 2018, the City Council approved a density bonus for The Sands, a multi-family housing development on a vacant 18.13+ acre parcel located on the south side of Hovley Lane East, generally east of Portola Avenue. The project consists of approximately 388 apartments, clubhouse and recreational amenities, and a mix of two- and three-story buildings. Pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.60.100 (C), development entitlements are valid for a period of two (2) years, and the Planning Commission can grant extensions of entitlements in one-year increments subject to findings that there are no changed circumstances or there has been diligent pursuit to exercise the permit that warrants such extension. Time Extension In 2019, the original project developer and applicant filed for bankruptcy. At the time, building plans had been submitted to the City for permitting of the project site; however, the plans did not reach approval. In 2021, Bravo Gardens LLC, the current owner and applicant, acquired the site for development. On February 8, 2022, the applicant received approval from the City’s Architecture Review Commission (ARC) for a revision to the apartment building architecture. The applicant is currently resolving offsite improvements with Public Works and is preparing final construction drawings for permitting. Since ARC approval, the applicant has demonstrated that they are working in diligent pursuit to obtain permits. The attached letter summarizes the applicant’s intent to submit for building permit review by the end of 2022 and begin construction by early 2023. The proposal continues to be consistent with the applicable general plan, zoning, and conditions of approval. For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension as allowed by the PDMC. If approved, the project approvals will remain in effect until April 26, 2023. April 19, 2022 – Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 16-394 Time Extension Page 2 of 2 LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Martin Alvarez Martin Alvarez, Director of Development Services N/A Veronica Chavez Director of Finance N/A Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager: L. Todd Hileman: N/A APPLICANT: Bravo Gardens, LLC. 72670 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201 Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTACHMENT: 1. Letter of Time Extension Request BRAVO GARDENS 72-670 FRED WARING ❑RIVE, SUITE #20T PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 April 6, 2022 City of Palm Desert Ms. Rosie Lua, Senior Planner Planning and Development 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: Time Extension Request for Bravo Gardens Apartments (nee The Sands) — PP/CUP/EA 16-394 Dear Rosie, As the development managers of the Bravo Gardens Apartments, and on behalf of our client and property owner Bravo Garden Apartments LLC, we respectfully request an extension of the entitlements initially granted on April 26, 2018. We have assembled a top caliber team composed of the architect, engineers, consultants, general contractor and investment advisor to execute the development of the property. Construction documents will be submitted to Building and Safety for plan check in the fourth quarter of 2022 and construction is scheduled to commence late in the first quarter of 2023. If there is any additional information or material which is needed to be submitted, or if there are any next steps which need to be taken to complete this request, please let us know. We look forward to your favorable action on this request and to formalizing its approval. Sincerely, f t. William E. Cutler Rachel Limon Fel on Development Manager Development Manager Cc: Claudio Bravo — Bravo Garden Apartments LLC Mike Rowe, P.E. — MSA Consulting, Inc. Vince Chupka — Humphreys Partners Architects Gregg Riddle -- W. F. O'Neil Construction Company of California STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: April 19, 2022 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a request to approve an 18-month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 37234 for the MCP Specific Plan that subdivides 32+ acres into four (4) planning areas east of Monterey Avenue, south of Dick Kelly Drive, north of A Street, and west of Gateway Drive. Recommendation By Minute Motion, approve an 18-month time extension for Tentative Parcel Map 37234 until September 12, 2023. Property Description On March 12, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-17, approving a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 37234. As required by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), the condition of approval of this project requires recordation of the Final Map within two (2) years of approval unless a time extension is granted. The Specific Plan includes land uses, development standards, and design criteria for 32+ acres of residential and commercial uses planned for the site. The Specific Plan entitlement runs with the land, therefore, does not have an expiration date. Tentative Parcel Map TPM 37234 subdivides the project site into four (4) parcels. A project requires a Precise Plan (PP) application, which will include site plan layout, architecture, landscaping, grading, parking, hydrology, open space, walls, reciprocal access between the parcels, and overall internal circulation. The planning areas within the Specific Plan and TPM 37234 are as follows: Planning Area 1 (PA1): PA1 consists of 7.37 acres located at the northwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Dick Kelly Drive. PA1 will remain zoned PC-2 and will be developed as a commercial shopping center(s) consisting of one- or two-story buildings, with the exception of a hotel(s) and mixed-use developments. Planning Area 2 (PA2): PA2 consists of 7.37 acres located at the southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and A Street. PA2 will remain zoned PC-2 and developed with the same land uses and development standards as PA1. Planning Area 3 (PA3): PA3 consists of six (6) acres located at the northeast corner of Dick Kelly and Gateway Drives. PA3 is currently zoned PR-22 and will be designated for alternative land uses such as residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments. PA3 may be developed per the following standards: April 19, 2022 – Staff Report Case No. TPM 37234 Time Extension Page 2 of 2 • Attached or detached residential units for sale or for rent at densities from 10-22 units per acre. • As a mixed-use project. • A commercial project. • A larger residential project combined with Planning Area 4. • PA3 will utilize the development standards identified in PA1, 2, and 4 based on the project. Planning Area 4 (PA4): PA4 consists of 11.44 acres located at the southeast corner of Gateway Drive and A Street. PA4 will remain zoned Planned Residential and allow up to 22 units per acre. Time Extension The applicant is in the process of submitting the final map for plan check, and demonstrating they are working in diligent pursuit to exercise the entitlement approval. In addition, the applicant is currently selling PAs 3 and 4 to a residential developer. Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.20.140 “Extensions of Time” and the Subdivision Map Act allows for the Planning Commission to grant an extension of time for up to 18-months for filing of the final map. The applicant requested a time extension prior to the March 12, 2022, expiration date. However, staff and the applicant thought that the map received an automatic extension under Government Code 65914.5 (AB1561 signed in September 2020), which provided an 18-month extension. Staff consulted with the City Surveyor and found that the map was not covered under AB1561 since the map did not expire prior to December 31, 2021. Since city staff assessed the situation in error, the applicant’s original request is being processed. If the Planning Commission grants the 18-month time extension, the extension date will be backdated starting on March 12, 2022. Staff recommends the Planning Commission to grant an 18-month time extension as allowed by PDMC. If approved, TPM 37234 will remain in effect until September 12, 2023. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Martin Alvarez Martin Alvarez, Director of Development Services N/A Veronica Chavez Director of Finance N/A Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager: L. Todd Hileman: N/A APPLICANT: MC Properties, LLC 270 North El Camino Real, Suite F397 Encinitas, CA 92024 ATTACHMENT: 1. Letter of Time Extension Request From:Chris Chambers To:Kevin Swartz; Monica O"Reilly Subject:MCP Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map Date:Thursday, April 14, 2022 3:19:46 PM Palm Desert City Planning Commission- Please extend the Tentative Parcel Map approved with the MCP Specific Plan for a minimum of 18 months. A multi- family developer is now under contract with the Specific Plan ownership to provide substantially more dwelling units than the 200 minimum required by the Specific Plan. The developer has done business in the City and has proposed preliminary plans that have been reviewed by City departments. The development being proposed will provide much needed attainable housing for the City and for Coachella Valley. The Final Parcel Map is being prepared and will be recorded well in advance of the requested extension. Thank you for you prompt attention to this matter. Sent from my iPhone STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: April 19, 2022 PREPARED BY: Rosie Lua, Principal Planner REQUEST: Consideration for a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.10 (Residential Districts) and Chapter 25.68 (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2810, recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 22- 0003 to modify Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.10 (Residential Districts and Chapter 25.68 (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission) Background The Mixed Residential District (R-2) within the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) provides for moderate-intensity and density of 3.0 to 10.0 density units per acre (du/ac) for neighborhood development. Neighborhoods are characterized by a variety of housing choices and mixed uses. The R-2 development standards allows two-story homes (up to 30 feet high and 2.5 stories maximum) without public notification or design standards. A recent building permit approval of a second-story addition in an existing single-story residential home (within the R-2 zoning designation) raised concerns that the R-2 development standards do not consider a public hearing process, lacks a design review that considers the neighbor’s privacy, and a resident support to limit the existing permitted height and number of stories allowed. On March 10, 2022, the City Council reviewed staff’s recommendation in response to the public’s concerns and directed staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA). The following are recommendations to address second stories of residential structures in the R-2 zone: 1) Modify Table 25.10-3 (Residential Zoning District Development Standards) for R-2 as shown below: A. Reduce height to 15 feet and require a discretionary Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval for heights above 15 feet up to 30 feet maximum. B. Reduce the number of stories from 2.5 to 2. C. Implement a public notification for projects above 15 feet within the R-2 Zoning District, requiring public notification to immediately adjacent property owners 10 days prior to the ARC meeting. April 19, 2022 –Staff Report Case No. ZOA22-0003 R-2 – Mixed Residential Page 2 of 3 Table 25.10-3: Residential Zoning District Development Standards Measurement/Zoning District RE3 R-13 R-2 R-3 R-1M1 HPR4 P.R.5 ≥1 ac ≥15,000 sf ≥10,000 sf, but ≤15,000 sf <10,000 sf Building Measurements Height, max 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC) 30′ 15’ (30’ ARC)8 40′ 18′ _ 40′ Number of Stories, max. 1 1 1 2 2.5 2 3 1 1 3 8 Allowable building height is 15 feet, above 15 feet to a max of 30 feet only with approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Public notification to immediately adjacent property owners 10 days prior to the ARC meeting. 2) Authorize the ARC to a decide on design review of second-story design elements to ensure impacts to the adjacent neighbors are minimized by modifying Chapter 25.68 (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission). Discussion The R-2 development standards will continue to allow 30 feet height maximum with discretionary ARC approval. The ARC will have consideration of a design review approval and requirements that consider second-story design elements, privacy concerns, lighting placement, and neighbor’s concerns on the proposed project. The allowable building height is proposed to be 15 feet as a permitted use which is consistent with the R-1 (Single-Family Residential District). In addition, the reduction from 2.5 to 2 maximum number of stories is to ensure that the maximum number of stories fits within the character of predominately single- family home residences and helps alleviate towering structures next to single-story homes. In addition, a public notification for projects above 15 feet would be required to notify the immediately adjacent property owners 10 days prior to the ARC meeting so that neighbors provide input early in the design process. It should be noted that the approval for a new single- family home or additions to a home are proposed at 15 feet or below it will be a ministerial approval. General Plan The General Plan promotes goals and policies to protect and enhance community value in neighborhoods and its surroundings. Land Use and Community Character Policy 1.1 (Scale of development) promotes the City’s corridors to use design techniques to a moderate height and use and ensure compatibility with surrounding development. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the R-2 ordinance supports the City’s goal of meeting the intent of the General Plan. April 19, 2022 –Staff Report Case No. ZOA22-0003 R-2 – Mixed Residential Page 3 of 3 Public Input Public noticing was conducted in accordance with state law. A public hearing notice was published on Sunday, April 10, 2022, in The Desert Sun. Since the public notification published above, staff has not received any comments towards this item. However, staff received several letters from the public favoring changes to the R-2 development standards to consider a public hearing process, design for the privacy of neighboring properties, and revising the ordinance to limit heights in the R-2 zone. All written correspondences are attached to this staff report, including the correspondences received at the March 10, 2022, City Council meeting (Attachment 4). Environmental Review The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert finds that the adoption of this ordinance has been analyzed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the state CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). It has been determined that the amendments do not meet the definition of a project because the amendments do not have the potential to cause either a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan’s goals of ensuring the quality of life for the community. Because the amendment is not a project under CEQA, they are not subject to further environmental review. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the amendment and in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Findings in support of this ZOA are contained in the Resolution No. 2810, attached to this staff report. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Martin Alvarez Martin Alvarez, Dir. of Development Services N/A Veronica Chavez Director of Finance N/A Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager L. Todd Hileman: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution No. 2810 2. Draft Exhibit A: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. March 10, 2022, City Council Staff Report & Public Comment PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2810 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.10 THE R-2 ZONING (MIXED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) AND CHAPTER 25.68 (DECISIONS BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION) CASE NO: ZOA22-0003 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of April 2022, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-noted; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) modifies the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Chapter 25.10 (Mixed Residential District) to update the development standards and Chapter 25.68 (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission) relating to design review for second stories; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, in reviewing all the facts and any testimony given, adopts the following as its Findings in recommended approval of the ZOA to the City Council: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert hereby finds that: A. The City of Palm Desert, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and B. The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to establish by ordinance the regulations for land use and development. SECTION 2. Amendment. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert recommends that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, approve and adopt the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) amendment to Chapter 25.10 (Mixed Residential District) and Chapter 25.68 (Decisions by the Architectural Review Commission) as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase in this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2810 2 SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is not a “project,” as defined in the CEQA because it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and concerns general policy and procedure making. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR ATTEST: MARTIN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION “EXHIBIT A” ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 1. Amendment to Palm Desert Municipal Code. Palm Desert Municipal Code section 25.10.050 is hereby amended as follows: 25.10.050 Development Standards Table 25.10-3: Residential Zoning District Development Standards Measurement/Zoning District RE3 R-13 R-2 R-3 R-1M1 HPR4 P.R.5 ≥1 ac ≥15,000 sf ≥10,000 sf, but ≤15,000 sf <10,000 sf Residential Density Density (du/ac), min – max 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 5 - 8 3 - 10 7 - 40 7 1/5 ac 4 - 40 Lot Dimensions Lot size, min 40,000 sf 15,000 sf 10,000 sf 8,000 sf 3,500 sf 3,000 sf 20 ac / 5,000 sf – – Lot size, max 1 ac No max 14,999 sf 9,999 sf No max No max No max – – Lot width, min 150′ 90′ 90′ 70′ 50′ 40′ 500′ – – Lot depth, min 200′ 125′ 100′ – - - – – – Setbacks Front yard, min 30′ 25′ 20′ 20′ 12′ 10′ 20′ / 5′ – – Side yard, min 15′ 15′ 8′ 5′ 6 5′ 8′ 10′ / 5′ – – Combined both sides, min 30′ 30′ 20′ 10′ 6 10′ 10′ – – – Street side yard, min 30′ 15′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 20′ / – – – Rear yard, min 50′ 20′ 20′ 15′ 15′ 10′ 10′ / 5′ – – Residential accessory structures See Section 25.40.050 (Accessory Buildings and Structures) Coverage Lot coverage, max percentage of lot area 30% 35%2 35%2 35%2 60% 75% – 10% 50% Building Measurements Height, max 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC) 30′ 15’ (30’ ARC)8 40′ 18′ _ 40′ Number of Stories, max. 1 1 1 2 2.5 2 3 1 1 3 Dwelling unit size, min 1,500 sf 1,250 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 600 sf 450 sf – – – Dwelling unit size, max – – – – 4,000 sf 4,000 sf – 4,000 sf – Site area per dwelling unit, min – – – – 4,000 sf 2,500 sf – – – Building pad area, max – – – – – – – 10,000 sf – Open Space Group usable open space per dwelling unit, min – – – – – 300 sf – – – Notes 1. The dimension requirements included in this column apply to a manufactured home park project sites as well as individual sites within the park. The first dimension is for the larger project site. 2. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as 50 percent pending ARC approval, through the design review process. 3. All development standards are based on the square footage shown on the zoning map and not necessarily the physical lot size of a property. Properties only zoned R-1 without a square footage allocation shall comply with standards for < 10,000 square feet. Confirm standards with Planning Division staff for correct zoning designation and lot size development standards. 4. Hillside Development Plan approval process in Section 25.78.020 5. The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide design criteria for the achievement of functional and attractive developments that fit within the context of the City of Palm Desert. Exceptions to the criteria contained within the Development Plan may be appropriate with the application of innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with the character envisioned at the time of approval. 6. Setbacks within the Palm Desert Country Club in R-1 and R-2 have a 5 feet sideyard setback (See Figure 25.10-1 Palm Desert Country Club Setbacks) and a combined setback of 10 feet. 7. Allowable maximum building height is 18 feet with approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). 8 Allowable building height is 30 feet with approval by the Architectural Review Commission for buildings exceeding 15 feet. Public notification to immediately adjacent properties 10 days prior to the ARC meeting. SECTION 2. Amendment to Palm Desert Municipal Code. Palm Desert Municipal Code section 25.68.20 (Design Review Required) is hereby amended as follows: Purpose and applicability. Design review allows for specified projects to be reviewed by the ARC to ensure that design objectives of Palm Desert as specified in the General Plan are achieved. Design review is required, as follows: A. Prior to permit issuance. No plan, elevation for buildings or structures, or alterations shall be approved and no permit shall be issued for any building, structure, sign, or other development of property or appurtenances or alterations thereto, except in single-family residential districts, without review and approval by the ARC. B. The ARC shall review all plans submitted with applications for moving buildings within or into the City. Photographs shall be included with the application showing all elevations, the structure proposed to be moved, the proposed site, and the buildings adjacent to the proposed site. The ARC shall determine whether the building proposed to be moved will fit harmoniously into the neighborhood wherein it is to be located. It may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the issuance of a permit to move such building. C. The ARC shall review all plans for new two-story residential dwellings and second story additions within the R-2 Zoning District as required by Table 25.10-3 (Residential Zoning District Development Standards) to ensure second stories are compatible with surrounding homes including massing, materials, and considers privacy of adjacent neighbors. The ARC design review shall include the following: 1) The mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. New construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. 2) Placement of windows and doors should have minimal impact to the neighboring property. 3) Line of sight analysis shall be provided 4) To mitigate privacy impacts of new two-story homes and additions, tree and/or shrub planting is required. a. Applicability. These requirements shall apply to new two-story homes, two- story additions, and/or new windows on existing two-story homes that increase privacy impacts on neighboring residents. 5) Planting Plan. Proposals for a new two-story homes, two-story additions, and/or new windows on existing two-story homes shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing and proposed trees or shrubs to meet the requirements. CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.10 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) AND 25.68 (DECISIONS BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION) The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated study of impacts. Project Location/Description: Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Approval of staff’s recommendation will consider a regulatory response to the construction of a second story in the R-2 Zoning (Mixed Residential District) within the City. Recommendation: Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council approval of the first reading of the R-2 Zoning and Architectural Review regulation changes as it relates to second stories and pass to the second reading. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on April 19, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and- commissions/planning-commission-information-center. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from April 10, 2022 to April 19, 2022. Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Rosie Lua, Planning Manager. Please submit written comments to the Planning/Land Development Division. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Rosie Lua, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611, Extension 480 rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN MARTIN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY APRIL 10, 2022 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: March 10, 2022 PREPARED BY: Rosie Lua, Planning Manager REQUEST: Review recommended changes to the development standards of the R-2 (Mixed Residential District) and direct staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment in Chapter 25.10 of the municipal code. Recommendation By minute motion, direct staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to modify the development standards of the R-2 (Mixed Residential District) Zoning District in Chapter 25.10 of the municipal code. Strategic Plan · Land Use, Housing & Open Space – Priority 5: “Utilize progressive land use policies and standards to support ongoing and future needs.” Background Analysis The R-2 (Mixed Residential District) development standards related to height and number of stories are a focus of the City. Recently, concerns from the public have been raised related to the zoning designation changes of properties previously zoned R-1 and the development standard changes that increased the number of stories and heights in R-2 zoning that occurred in 2017. The recent construction of a second-story home addition on El Cortez Way has some residents concerned that the development standards of the R-2 zoning designation has allowances for two-story homes as a permitted use (up to 30 feet high and 2.5 stories maximum) without public notification or design standards. The concerns that have come forth are mainly related to the development standards of the R-2 zoning that changes the character of their existing neighborhoods. The staff’s recommendation to the City Council has considered these concerns. Table 1 below provides a historical timeline of zoning changes from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-2 (Mixed Use Residential) including General Plan and Zoning District changes that occurred as a result of the Zoning Consistency Update on August 24, 2017. This change occurred directly after the adoption of the City’s General Plan Update which was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), that considered land uses and its impacts to those communities. These City actions, inclusive of a General Plan Update, EIR, and Zoning Consistency Update followed all proper state and municipal code procedures for public notifications and hearings requirements for adoption. March 10, 2022 – Staff Report Recommendations to R-2 Development Standards Page 2 of 4 Table 1 History of Areas with Zoning Changes from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to R-2 (Mixed Use Residential) Year General Plan/Zoning Land Use Designation Development Standards Prior to November 16, 2016 General Plan R-M, Medium Density Residential None Zoning R-1, Single-Family Residential District -Maximum height 15 feet (18 feet with approval of Architectural Review Commission (ARC)) -Single story -Design standards limited to screening of roof equipment -No public hearings required for ARC Post November 16, 2016 (General Plan adoption) General Plan Update Small Town Neighborhood 2.5 maximum No. of stories Zoning R-1, Single-Family Residential District -Maximum height 15 feet (18 feet with approval of ARC) -Single story -Design standards limited to screening of roof equipment -No public hearings required for ARC After August 24, 2017 General Plan Small Town Neighborhood 2.5 maximum No. of stories Zoning Consistency Update R-2, Mixed Residential District -Maximum height 30 feet -2.5 maximum no. of stories -Design standards limited to screening of roof equipment -No ARC process/No public hearings required As shown in Table 1, after August 24, 2017, the R-2 Zoning District included a modification to the development standards to align with the allowances provided in the General Plan land use designation of a Small Town Neighborhood, which increased the number of stories to a maximum of 2.5 stories. The R-2 development standards have an outright permitted height of 30 feet and a maximum of 2.5 stories. It should be noted that constructing a new single-family home or constructing a second story is a ministerial approval (staff level approval) so does not require a public hearing notice. The municipal code does not incorporate design standards to regulate ministerial type approvals except for requiring the screening of all roof equipment. On the other hand, if an applicant is constructing multiple units in an R-2 zoned property, a public hearing and approval of the Planning Commission is required, regardless if it is a single-story or multi-story building. March 10, 2022 – Staff Report Recommendations to R-2 Development Standards Page 3 of 4 Discussion Staff has reviewed the concerns of the residents and criteria below for a recommendation to the City Council: 1) Analyzed the Small Town Neighborhood General Plan land use designation and current R-2 (Mixed Residential District) for consistency. 2) Evaluated the reduction of the height and number of stories for the R-2 that impacts the entire City. 3) Reviewed the public notification process for implementation. 4) Studied potential design guidelines for second story homes. After review of the above stated items, staff is recommending the following to the City Council: 1) Modify Table 25.10-3 (Residential Zoning District Development Standards) for R-2 as shown below: A. Reduce height to 15 feet and require a discretionary ARC approval for heights above 15 feet up to 30 feet maximum. B. Reduce the Number of Stories from 2.5 to 2. C. Implement a public notification for projects above 15 feet within the R-2 Zoning District, requiring public notification to immediately adjacent property owners 10 days prior to the ARC meeting. 2) Authorize the ARC to review the second-story design elements to ensure impacts to the adjacent neighbors are minimized. Table 25.10-3: Residential Zoning District Development Standards Measurement/Zoning District RE3 R-13 R-2 R-3 R-1M1 HPR4 P.R.5 ≥1 ac ≥15,000 sf ≥10,000 sf, but ≤15,000 sf <10,000 sf Building Measurements Height, max 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC) 30′ 15’ (30’ ARC)8 40′ 18′ _ 40′ Number of Stories, max. 1 1 1 2 2.5 2 3 1 1 3 8 Allowable building height is 15 feet, above 15 feet to a max of 30 feet only with approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Public notification to immediately adjacent property owners 10 days prior to the ARC meeting. Public Input March 10, 2022 – Staff Report Recommendations to R-2 Development Standards Page 4 of 4 Staff has received several letters from the public concerning the R-2 development standards and questioning whether or not second stories should have a notification to its neighbors, design standards, and limitations to the existing permitted height and number of stories allowed. All written correspondences are attached to this staff report. Recommendation Staff seeks the City Council’s direction to initiate a ZOA to consider the changes discussed in this report or open the discussion for further recommendations and evaluation of the R-2 (Mixed Residential District). The amendment will require approval of the Planning Commission prior to consideration of the City Council. Staff anticipates the amendment for City Council consideration in late April 2022. Fiscal Analysis There is no fiscal impact related to the staff’s proposal. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Martin Alvarez Martin Alvarez, Director of Development Services N/A Veronica Chavez Acting Director of Finance Andy Firestine Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager L. Todd Hileman: L. Todd Hileman ATTACHMENT: 1. R-2 Zoning Map 2. Public Correspondences 3. Chapter 25.10 (Residential Districts) Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community R-2 - Residential Single Family From:Kurt Linda Davis To:Rosie Lua Subject:Property located at 72764 Arboleda Dr, PD Date:Wednesday, February 16, 2022 3:21:50 PM Dear Ms Lua, We are writing to express our concerns regarding possible future development of the property at 72764 Arboleda Dr, PD. We understand you have been in conversation with our neighbor, Lindsey Harris, regarding concerns we share. We believe Lindsey has expressed our concerns quite effectively. We have owned our home in the Palm Dell Estates since 1978. We love our neighbors, the neighborhood, the area, and especially the beauty of our mountain views. With the R-2 zoning, we are concerned that we could possibly lose our privacy as well as our beautiful mountain view enjoyed for these many years, should a two-story structure be erected. We thank you, and the City of Palm Desert, for considering setting design standards that would protect neighbor privacy as well as protect view of the mountains, before it possibly becomes a negative issue in our neighborhood. -Kurt & Linda Davis 72814 Arboleda Dr, PD (760) 902-7981 From:Lindsey L Harris To:Martin Alvarez Cc:Rosie Lua Subject:Property located at 72764 Arboleda Dr, Palm Desert Date:Monday, February 14, 2022 3:18:30 PM Dear Mr Alvarez, The purpose of this email is to request some consideration by the City of Palm Desert in how the property located in the address above might possibly be developed. My interest in this is due to the fact that my husband and I live in the home that is immediately adjacent, located at 43754 Fairhaven Dr. We share a property line of approximately 120 ft with the Arboleda property. The previous owner recently died and his heirs have listed the property for sale. We had a wonderful long term relationship with the prior owner and are truly hoping to create an equally pleasant relationship with any new owner. In order to eliminate any potential for misunderstanding on our part, or anyone who is considering purchasing the Arboleda property, I would respectfully request that the City of Palm Desert consider the character of the Palm Dell Estates neighborhood. Those of us who have lived in this neighborhood are thoughtful, caring, respectful, and helpful to each other. We have a strong and active Neighborhood Watch Program that keeps us all informed and friendly. It is a joy to live here. I am aware of new development standards imposed by the State of California regarding development of R-2 property. I have had a very informative conversation with Rosie Lua of your staff, who was quite helpful. She is the one who suggested that I start this correspondence with you. I have copied this email to her as well. I hope that anyone else who is involved in the decision process for this property will also be alerted by one of you of our concern. Of course our hope is that one of the many people who have already expressed an interest in purchasing the property for use as a single family residence are able to follow through and keep the house in character with this neighborhood. However, hoping something might happen usually is a poor approach. So, since there are several neighbors who also have a vested interest in what happens with the future of the Aboleda property, and many others in the neighborhood who care deeply about this issue, we are wondering if there are some architectural and building restrictions that could be applied or overlayed to any request for permits on the Arboleda property. I have not contacted the Building Department, or the City Council yet. I believe there is a path that is best applicable in this case and I am hoping you will help us find the best avenue for bringing about a positive and proactively successful result. The past two City Council meetings I have heard the concerns expressed by Jered Pordaleschi (spelling may not be correct). He has a similar situation to ours, except that the damage has already been done and construction of a two story house with various windows and decking now overlook his backyard. We are certainly concerned and are trying to avoid a similar result here. There are many in our neighborhood who are more than willing to write letters to you or the City Council, whichever is appropriate. They will participate in resolving this issue successfully in any approach that you direct us to take. None of us want to wait until it's too late to make a difference. I would like to explore our options with you, or whomever is the best person to handle this situation. We want to be certain that at a minimum the adjacent neighbors will be notified of any activity or requests that are brought to the City regarding the Arboleda property. This would include demolition permitting, architectural review, building permit requests, or any other activity. We are especially concerned with hazards related to demolition due to the presence of a high level of black mold in the house. It would be appreciated if we could participate in or at least comment on any development requested on the property. Our goal is to have an understanding of how we might be able to influence the development in a positive manner. Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration and assistance in this issue. I will look forward to hearing back from you, or meeting, or speaking with you as soon as possible. Sincerely, -Lindsey Harris 43754 Fairhaven Dr, Palm Desert 92260, cell: 760-799-7175 My wife and I are writing you and indirectly the City Council regarding the R-2 zoning designation throughout the City of Palm Desert. It is our understanding that this issue will come before City Council for guidance, possibly at the March 10 th meeting. We would like to express our concerns regarding two story structures being built throughout the City as infill new homes or additions to existing homes in single story neighborhoods. We would suggest more restrictive design standards be applied in those areas so as to enhance the continuity of the neighborhood. Mixed story homes throughout a single -story neighborhood are not aesthetically pleasing and not, we hope, what the City of Palm Desert is promoting. Our home is located at 43840 Fairhaven Drive and is a prime example of what the build out of this type of infill or the remodeling of an existing home could do to a neighborhood. We have lived at this location since 1986 and have two very different situations affecting our residence. The home across the street is up for sale with a sale pending. Hence the reason for this communication. The house and the surrounding structures including the walls are simply put, an eye sore. We know, as we have had to look at it out our front door for 35 years. What a travesty it would be to us and the adjacent property owners, if a two-story house or houses were built in its place. An eyesore for 35 years replaced by yet a bigger one. The second property is a lot adjacent to our property, diagonally south east. Being a vacant lot, it has provided us with an unobstructed view of the mountains and City tree line. Again, more restrictive design standards would, to a certain level, protect our view but more importantly not allow a two-story structure with a view directly into ours’ and our neighbors’ backyard and the back of our homes. We understand that the City Council have been handcuffed by State of California housing mandates and new laws. We are not sure how the City of Palm Desert being a Charter City can impact decisions of this nature. But we do feel that the City Council has the ability to establish more restrictive design standards throughout our community and empower various city departments the ability to consider the impacts on a case by case basis to enhance the quality of life for all residents. We and many of our neighbors would be more than happy to express our concerns directly to the City Council, if you feel it appropriate and effective. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views regarding this issue. Jerry and Judi Rogers 43840 Fairhaven Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 760 250 4948 From:David Middleton To:Rosie Lua Subject:Zoning and design standards for Palm Dell Estates Date:Friday, February 18, 2022 3:25:34 PM I ask you to consider an ordinance to regulate construction in residential neighborhoods. To use our own little community, Palm Dell Estates, as an example, we have seen a steady deterioration in the quality of life over the past 35 years. Originally we enjoyed the central location with easy access to shopping and work. We could easily bicycle or walk to many parts of Palm Desert. That has all changed as the priority seems to have been to move more cars faster, and we often find ourselves land-locked by the Fred Waring Speedway, the Parkview Drag Strip and the Monterey Autobahn. Trying to walk across the street requires the fearlessness of a daredevil or a genuine desire to end it all. We long ago gave up on trying to enjoy a bicycle ride. This along with the deafening noise at all hours and the light pollution destroying our sky views. We now face the prospect that a house in our neighborhood will be razed and replaced with new construction, that could include two dwellings up to 30 feet high. This would radically alter the look of our neighborhood, made up now of one-story dwellings. Such a house would intrude on the privacy of three adjoining homes and block the views of the mountains for many of us. We don’t see any way such structures could fit into the character of our community. I hasten to note that we have already been assaulted by the poorly planned development to our west. With inadequate parking in their gated community, many residents are now parking on Fairhaven. We note that the amount of trash strewn around the neighborhood has increased. Thankfully several of the neighbors go out and pick it up when it gets bad enough, a testament to the cohesiveness of our community. I think you are already well versed in the problems we face due to the street fair at COD and the use of Acacia to relieve traffic from Monterey. I think Palm Desert, as a charter city, has room to apply the spirit of the state requirements to permit more housing on residential lots. We residents of Palm Dell Estates think a main house and a small structure can fit onto our lots, and they can be kept to one story with a maximum height of 15 feet, and that is the guidance we ask you to direct to the City Council. Sincerely, Dave Middleton 72799 Arboleda DR Palm Desert 760 399 6855 dfmiddletonphd@gmail.com From: Jared Portolesi <jaredportolesi@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 11:43 AM To: Martin Alvarez <malvarez@cityofpalmdesert.org>; CouncilMeeting Comments <CouncilMeetingComments@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Jared Portolesi 74057 el cortez way Hi Martine, As you can see by the attached pictures, my Wife, our 4 children, and myself are HIGHLY negatively impacted by the Contruction of a second floor next door. We have lost all privacy and all views. We now have 3 large windows or sliding doors on the second story next door looking directly over our entire yard and pool area. We are very disappointed with this ordinance and the lack of forethought that was given to the negative impact this has on home owners and their families. We have never been notified of these changes nor were we notified of the contruction of the second story next door to us seen in the pictures below. Were there even studies completed by the city as to how this might effect people’s privacy? Was there any consideration regarding how making this already extremely dense area even more dense would effect parking on streets that are already packed daily? I have also copied the city council email prior to 12pm so they are aware of the negative impact that this new ordinance has on surrounding homes. Ensuring it will be part of the record of todays meeting. Per our phone conversation this morning I look forward to hearing back from you with a solution to regaining our privacy in our yard. Thank you, Jared Portolesi Palm Desert Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames Title 25 ZONING Chapter 25.10 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS* * CodeAlert: This topic has been affected by Ordinance No. 1374. To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. 25.10.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish residential zoning districts in the City, along with allowed use and development standards applicable to those districts. These districts are consistent with and implement the City’s General Plan neighborhood land use categories as indicated in Table 25.04-1 (Zoning Districts). (Ord. 1324 § 4, 2017; Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) 25.10.020 Characteristics of the Residential Districts The following descriptions of each residential district identify the characteristic uses, density, intensity of uses and the types of development intended for that district. A. Estate Residential District (RE). The district is intended to provide low intensity and neighborhood development (0.5—1.0 du/ac) and generally is characterized by limited development on large properties and preservation of natural features and open space. B. Single-Family/Mobile Home Residential District (R-1M). This district provides for the permanent placement and occupancy of single family dwelling units, factory built or manfucatored dwelling units and mobile homes for residential purposes on purchased, rented or leased lots. The district is characterized as having moderated density (4.0—7.0 du/ac) focused around community space and amenities with walkable streetscapes. C. Single-Family Residential District (R-1). The intent of this district is to encourage the preservation and development of traditional residential neighborhoods. The district provides for low intensity development (2.0—8.0 du/ac) generally characterized by single-family homes on medium-sized lots organized around formal and walkable streetscapes. D. Mixed Residential District (R-2). The intent of this district is to provide moderate intensity and density (3.0 —10.0 du/ac) for neighborhood development. Neighborhoods are characterized by a variety of housing choices and mixed-uses. Buildings are organized around formal and walkable streetscapes with high levels of pedestrian connectivity. E. Multifamily Residential District (R-3). The intent of this district is to provide suitable areas for moderate to higher intensity and density (7.0—40.0 du/ac) for residential development and small scale commercial activity. The zoning district is characterized by higher density residential development and mixed-uses in proximity to retail and commercial services. Buildings are organized around formal streetscapes with a variety of plazas and other pedestrian amenites and open spaces that are highly connected to surrounding development. F. Hillside Planned Residential District (HPR). The purpose of the hillside planned residential district is to provide for the lowest intensity (0.2 du/ac) of residential development by minimizing the grading of hillside areas and to preserve the natural contours of the land by avoiding extensive cut and fill of slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development. This district is characterized by the preservation of natural features and protected viewsheds, architecture and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain, and informal and natural streetscapes that follow the topography of the land. G. Planned Residential District (PR). The purpose of this district is to provide for flexibility in residential development, by encouraging creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities (4.0—40.0 du/ac), mixed housing types, and community facilities. The district is charactersized as providing for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments and is organized around formal, walkable, and highly connected streetscapes. (Ord. 1324 § 4, 2017; Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) 25.10.030 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements Table 25.10-1 “Use Matrix for Residential Districts” below identifies land uses and corresponding permit requirements for residential districts and all other provisions of this title. Descriptions/definitions of the land uses can be found in Chapter 25.99 “Definitions”. The Special Use Provisions column in the table identifies the specific chapter or section where additional regulations for that use type are located within this title. Use regulations in the table are shown with a representative symbol by use classification listing: “P” symbolizes uses permitted by right, “A” symbolizes uses that require approval of an administrative use permit, “L” symbolizes uses that require approval of a large family day care use permit, “C” symbolizes uses that require approval of a conditional use permit, and “N” symbolizes uses that are not permitted. Uses that are not listed are not permitted. However, the Commission may make a use determination as outlined in Section 25.72.020 (Use Determinations). Table 25.10-1: Use Matrix for Residential Districts Residential Zoning District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; L=Large Family Day Care Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) RE R-1 R-2 R-3 R-1M HPR PR Special Use Provisions Residential Uses Assisted living N C C C N N C Accessory dwelling unit P P P P P N P 25.34.030 Condominium N N C C N N C Dwelling, duplex N N P P N N N Dwelling, multifamily N N P P N N C 25.10.040.A Dwelling, second P P P P N P P 25.34.030 Dwelling, single-family P P P N N P P Farmworker housing N N N N N N N Group home P P P N N P P 25.10.040.B Guest dwelling P P P N N P P Home-based business P P P P P P P Junior accessory dwelling unit P P P P P N P 25.34.030 Manufactured home parks N N N N C N N Planned unit development, residential N N C C N C C 25.10.040.C Transitional and supportive housing see Note 1 Agriculture-Related Uses Apiary P P P N N P P Botanical conservatory A N N N N N N Crops and horticulture, limited A N N N N N N Domestic animals P P P P P P P Residential Zoning District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; L=Large Family Day Care Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) RE R-1 R-2 R-3 R-1M HPR PR Special Use Provisions Garden, private P P P P P P P Greenhouse, commercial C N N N N N N Greenhouse, private P P P A A P P Horticulture, private P P P P P P P Kennel C N N N N N C 25.10.040.D Livestock raising, noncommercial C N N N N N N Nursery C N N N N N N Orchard A N N N N N N Stable, boarding A N N N N N N 25.10.040.E Stable, private A N N N N N N 25.10.040.E Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, and Public Assembly Uses Cemetery N N N N N N C Community facility N N N N N N C Club, private N N C C N N C Crematory N N N N N N N Day care, large family L L L L L L L 25.10.040.F Day care, small family P P P P P P P Institution, educational2 C C C C C N C Institution, general2 N N N C N N C Institution, religious C C C C N N C Public park P P P P P P P Recreational use, commercial N N N N N N C 25.10.040.G Recreational vehicle park N N N N C N C Recreation facility, commercial N N N N N N N Recreation facility, incidental C C C C C N C 25.10.040.H Recreation facility, private P N N P P N P Recreation facility, public C C C C C N C Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Electric substation N N N N N N N Fire station C C C C N N C Public service facility C C C C C N N Public utility C C C C C N N Utility facility N N N N N N C Retail, Service, and Office Uses Bed and breakfast C N N C N N N Residential Zoning District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; L=Large Family Day Care Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) RE R-1 R-2 R-3 R-1M HPR PR Special Use Provisions Commercial parking lot N C N C N N N 25.10.040.I Condominium hotel, converted N N C C N N C Hospital N N C C N N C Hotel N N N C N N C 25.10.040.J Neighborhood government office N N C C N N N 25.10.040.K Office parking lot N C C C N N N 25.10.040.L Professional office N N C C N N N 25.10.040.M Resort hotel N N N C N N C 25.10.040.J Timeshares N N N N N N C Temporary Uses See Section 25.34.080 Notes: 1. Transitional and supportive housing shall be subject to only those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. 2. Trade schools are not permitted. (Ord. 1358 § 2, 2020; Ord. 1324 § 4, 2017; Ord. 1304 § 1, 2016; Ord. 1279 § 1, 2015; Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) 25.10.040 Specific Use Standards The following provisions apply as indicated to the uses listed in Table 25.10-1 (Use Matrix for Residential Districts): A. Multifamily. Multifamily dwelling units are permitted within the R-2 district up to a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre, or as indicated on the zoning map. Multifamily dwelling units are permitted within the R-3 district at densities between 7 and 40 dwelling units per acre, or as indicated on the zoning map. B. Group Home. When permitted according to Table 25.10-1 (Use Matrix for Residential Districts), group homes are limited to 6 or fewer residents. C. Planned Residential. Cluster development and/or condominiums are permitted as part of a planned development. D. Kennel. Excluding domestic pets, all boarding for animals or fowl must be at least 100 feet away from any neighboring residential home. E. Stables. The stabling of horses (or mules) is permitted with an administrative use permit in the residential estate district subject to the following provisions: 1. Two standard horses (or mules) over 14.2 hands, 58 inches shall be permitted on a lot of 40,000 square feet minimum area with a total number of horses all sizes not exceeding three. (This would allow one additional pony or the temporary keeping of one foal). 2. Horses must be kept within a corral and/or enclosed stable of the following minimum dimensions: a. Corral. 288 square feet per horse; minimum dimensions of 12 by 24 feet, and one-third shaded. b. Stable. 144 square feet, minimum dimension 12 feet by 12 feet per horse. Stable shall be ventilated for the desert environment. c. Construction. Corrals and stables shall be constructed of material and in such a manner to adequately contain the horses. 3. Barns, corrals or stables constructed to maintain horses shall be located not less than 35 feet from any residence or habitable structure on the same lot and not less than 50 feet from any residence or habitable structure on adjacent lots. Barns, corrals, or stables may be located within 50 feet of a front property line if the finding can be made that the design and appearance of such structures are compatible with surrounding properties. No horses shall be permitted within 100 feet of an adjacent property not zoned RE (i.e., R1, O.P., PR). 4. Animal manure shall be stored in appropriate receptacles and properly disposed of not less than once per week. 5. Barns, corrals, or stables shall be cleaned and maintained such that dust, flies, and odors shall not create a nuisance for adjacent properties and not less than once per day. F. Large Family Day Care. Large family day care facilities require the issuance of a large family day care use permit in accordance with Section 25.64.020, and are permitted subject to the following requirements: 1. Space and Concentration. Properties proposed for use as large family day care homes shall be located no closer than 300 feet in all directions from another large family day care home. An adjustment may be granted according to Chapter 25.64.030 (Adjustments) of this ordinance to reduce this distance to no more than 100 feet. 2. Traffic Control. A traffic circulation plan shall be designed to diminish traffic safety problems. Residences located on major arterial streets (as shown on the General Plan circulation map) must provide a drop-off/pick-up area designed to prevent vehicles from backing onto the arterial roadway. The applicant may be required to submit a plan of staggered drop-off and pick-up time ranges to reduce congestion in neighborhoods already identified as having traffic congestion problems. 3. Parking. All homes used for large family day care facilities shall provide at least three automobile parking spaces, no more than one of which may be provided in a garage or carport. Parking may be on-street if contiguous to property. These may include spaces already provided to fulfill residential parking requirements. 4. Noise Control. Operation of the facility shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 9.24 (Noise Control) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Additional conditions may be placed on use permits to reduce noise impact if ongoing problems exist. 5. Signage. No signs or other exterior markings identifying a large family day care operation shall be allowed on the applicant’s home. 6. Residency. The applicant must be a primary resident of the home that is proposed as a large family day care home. 7. Contact Person. The current name(s) and telephone number(s) of the applicant, and all other operators if different from the applicant, of the family day care home shall be on file with the City at all times. 8. State Licensing. All appropriate licensing from the California Department of Social Services shall be obtained prior to commencing operation of any large family day care home in the City. 9. Building and Fire Code Compliance. Consistent with Section 1597.46 of the Health and Safety Code, the proposed large family day care home must comply with all building and fire code provisions applicable to single-family residences, and with such additional standards as the State Fire Marshal, from time to time, adopts pursuant to Section 1597.46(d) of the Health and Safety Code to promote the fire and life safety of children in large family day care homes. (See Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.) 10. Smoking Restricted. Consistent with Section 1596.795 of the Health and Safety Code, smoking of tobacco and other substances—whether in pipe, cigar, or cigarette form—shall not be allowed in the applicant’s home during its hours of operation as a large family day care home with respect to those areas of the home where children are present. 11. Proof of Control. No use permit shall be issued unless the applicant can demonstrate legal authority and control over the real property proposed to be used as a large family day care home. G. Recreational Use, Commercial. Commercial recreation uses are limited to the PR zone only with the issuance of a conditional use permit when not directly related to a permitted residential development. H. Recreation Facility, Incidental. Limited commercial uses are authorized as part of this use classification which are commonly associated with and directly related to the primary use. I. Commercial Parking Lot. Parking lots that service commercial establishments are permitted within 300 feet of the related commercial establishment. J. Hotel and Resort Hotel. In the R-3 zoning district, these uses are permitted up to a maximum of 40 units per gross acre with the issuance of a conditional use permit. In the PR zoning district, the maximum density shall be approved by the Commission or Council. K. Government Office Building. Small neighborhood government office buildings are permitted up to 5,000 square feet in size. L. Office Parking Lot. Parking lots that serve office developments are permitted when located directly adjacent to the office professional zone and consistent with recommendations of the General Plan. M. Professional Office within Residential District. These uses are permitted with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided property to be developed is abutting or across the street, or across an alley from commercially zoned property. Residential development standards are to be used to ensure compatibility. (Ord. 1324 § 4, 2017; Ord. 1279 § 2, 2015; Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) 25.10.050 Development Standards The development standards on Table 25.10-3 (Residential Zoning District Development Standards) are applicable to the residential zoning districts. These standards, along with other development standards (e.g., landscaping requirements, signs, and parking standards) in this title, are intended to assist property owners and project designers in understanding the City’s minimum requirements and expectations for high-quality development. A. Hillside Planned Residential Development Standards. The following standards must be met prior to the approval of a hillside development plan as described in Section 25.78.020: 1. Density. Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per 5 acres. All lots will be entitled to at least one unit. 2. Grading. Location of building pads and access roads shall be evaluated, approved, or adjusted based on consistency with the following: a. Preserved natural contours of the land to avoid extensive cut and fill slopes to reduce the need for a staircase effect within developments. b. Architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent. c. Retention and protection of undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks, and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements. d. Building Pad Area. The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. e. Access Road or Driveway. Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet. Roads shall be located and designed to blend with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent consistent with the grading provisions listed in this subsection A.2. f. Renaturalization. All cuts, fills, or other areas temporarily disturbed by grading shall be re- naturalized, colored, and landscaped to blend with the adjacent undisturbed natural terrain to the satisfaction of the City Council. 3. Maximum Dwelling Unit Size. Total dwelling unit, garage and accessory building size on any one lot shall not exceed 4,000 square feet. 4. Exception. The standards of subsections A.1 through A.3 of this section shall be required unless modified by one of the following: a. Precise Plan. The Commission and Council may approve a precise plan of design through public hearing process that modifies the standards in subsection A.1 through A.3. Said precise plan shall take into consideration any and all circumstances, including, but not limited to, viewshed, topography, color, texture, and profile of any structure that the Commission or Council may determine to be in conformity with the purposes set forth in this section. b. Previously Approved Existing Building Pads. If a property owner can demonstrate that a previous building pad was approved by the City or County before incorporation, a home and accessory structure(s) may be built on a previously approved building pad without a public hearing. The building size shall be limited to 35 percent of the lot, which may be increased up to 50 percent with ARC approval. Enlarging a previously approved existing building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 5. Previously approved existing building pads shall be subject to the standard coverage limitations of 35 percent, which may be increased up to 50 percent with ARC approval. Any change to an existing approved building pad shall require a new public hearing subject to the provisions of this chapter. 6. Development on or across ridges is prohibited. 7. Building pads and architecture shall be designed to eliminate or minimize any visual impact on the City to the maximum extent feasible. 8. All common open space shall be preserved for that purpose as shown in the development plan. The developer shall choose one or a combination of the following 3 methods of administering common open space: a. Dedication of common open space to the City, which is subject to formal acceptance. b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corporation of all property owners or corporations within the project area to ensure perpetual maintenance of all common open space. c. Retention of ownership, control, and maintenance of all common open space by the developer; all privately owned common open space shall continue as such and shall only be used in accordance with the development plan; appropriate land use restrictions shall be contained in all deeds to ensure that the common open space is permanently preserved according to the development plan; said deed restrictions shall run with the land and be for the benefit of present as well as future property owners, and shall contain a prohibition against partition of common open space. 9. Design Criteria. The following design criteria are established: a. The overall plan shall achieve an integrated land and building relationship. b. Open spaces, pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities, parking facilities, and other pertinent amenities shall be an integral part of the landscape and particular attention shall be given to the retention of natural landscape features of the site. c. The layout of structures and other facilities shall effect a conservation in street and utility improvements. d. Recreational areas, active and passive, shall be generally dispersed throughout the development and shall be easily accessible from all dwelling units. e. Architectural unity and harmony within the development and with the surrounding properties shall be attained. B. Planned Residential District Standards. 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of the PR district to provide for flexibility in development, creative and imaginative design, and the development of parcels of land as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, and community facilities. The PR district is further intended to provide for the optimum integration of urban and natural amenities within developments. The PR district is also established to give a land developer assurance that innovative and unique land development techniques will be given reasonable consideration for approval and to provide the City with assurances that the completed project will contain the character envisioned at the time of approval. 2. Filing Procedure. To initiate the review process, the applicant shall file applications for a change of zone (if needed) to a PR district along with a precise plan, tentative tract/parcel map and supporting environmental documentation. 3. Maximum Project Densities. The maximum project density shall be as expressed in dwelling units per gross acre of not more than the number following the zoning symbol PR. The Council shall determine the densities to be allowed within each PR district at the time the involved properties are rezoned and as designated on the zoning map within the following range: one to 40 dwelling units maximum per average gross acre. The density designation shall mean dwelling units per average gross acre. For example, PR-7 means a planned residential development with seven units per gross acre. 4. Maximum Density for “Affordable Projects.” For projects containing at least 20 percent units affordable to low income households as defined by the Riverside County Housing Authority, a maximum density of 55 dwelling units per acre may be allowed by precise plan. To be eligible for this program, the developer must enter into a development agreement which will tie the zoning designation and the precise plan approval to affordable housing performance standards. 5. Development Standards Applicable. All areas within the project site shall be subject to the following: a. The standards for development of PR districts set forth in this chapter and any supplemental standards for the planned community designated in the precise plan. b. Off-street parking and loading requirements. All parking and loading shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.46. c. Utilities. For provisions regarding utilities, see Section 25.40.120. d. Signs. All signs shall be in compliance with Chapter 25.56. e. Outside Storage. No outside storage shall exceed the height of actual perimeter screening. f. Screening. All screening requirements for developments within the PR district shall be determined by the ARC during review of the precise plan. g. Trash Handling. Trash handling facilities shall be provided for all developments within the PR district with the exception of single-family detached dwellings. A trash enclosure will be provided for all but excepted uses, unless the proposed location of the trash area is completely enclosed by walls or buildings. The freestanding trash enclosure shall be constructed of masonry block. No trash shall be allowed to extend above or beyond the enclosure. 6. Site Plan Review. Review of a site plan by Planning Department staff shall be required before a building permit is issued for any development in the PR district. 7. Special Standards. In addition to requiring all development plans to comply with the following special standards the Council and/or Commission may impose such other conditions to the development plan as it deems necessary or desirable in carrying out the general purpose and intent of this chapter. a. Minimum Project Area. Projects of less than 7 dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum area of 5 acres. Projects of 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum area of 10 acres. Projects with 18+ dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum area greater than 10 acres. b. Minimum Project Width. Projects of less than 7 dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum width of 200 feet. Projects of 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum width of 250 feet. Projects with 18+ dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum width greater than 300 feet. c. Minimum Project Perimeter Setback. The minimum perimeter setback shall be 20 feet from all property lines adjacent to existing or proposed public streets. d. Minimum Project Building Coverage. Projects of less than 7 dwelling units per acre shall have a maximum building coverage of 40 percent. Projects of 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre shall have a maximum building coverage of 50 percent. Projects with 18+ dwelling units per acre shall have a maximum building coverage of 80 percent. e. Minimum Lot Area. For single-family detached, the minimum lot area shall be as approved by the development plan. For single-family attached, the minimum lot area shall be 2,500 square feet. For a two- story dwelling, the minimum lot area shall be 3,000 square feet. For multiple-family buildings, the minimum lot area shall be as approved on the tract map. 8. Minimum Yards—Development Standards. For single-family attached, two-story family dwellings and multiple-family buildings, the minimum front, side and rear yards shall be as approved on the tract map. 9. Minimum Separation Between Sides of Buildings. For single-story, single-family detached buildings there shall be a minimum of 7 feet between sides. For two-story, single-family detached buildings there shall be a minimum of 10 feet between two-story elements. 10. Minimum Common Open Space. a. Projects of less than 7 dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum common open space of 30 percent of the net area. b. Projects of 7 to 18 dwelling units per acre shall have a minimum common open space of 20 percent of the net area. c. At least 50 percent of all required common open space shall be approximately level, defined as not more than 13.5 percent grade. d. The common open space shall be land within the total development site used for recreational, including buildings used for recreation purposes, parks or environmental purposes for enjoyment by occupants of the development and their guests, or dedicated to the City for public parks. e. Common open space shall not include public or private streets, driveways, private yards, or patios and parking areas. 11. Building Height. The maximum building height in a PR district shall be 40 feet or three-story, whichever is less, or as approved by the Planning Commission. 12. Maximum Dwelling Units per Building. The maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be as approved by the Planning Commission. 13. Required Width of Private Roads. With no parking, the private roads shall be 20 feet wide. With parking on one side, 32 feet wide. With parking on two sides, 40 feet wide. The roadways shall be a minimum of asphaltic concrete with concrete curbs and gutters as approved by the Director. Standards of design and construction of roadways, both public and private, within the project may be modified as is deemed appropriate by the City, especially where it is found that the development plan provides for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and provides for adequate off-street parking facilities. 14. RV Park Standards. The following standards apply to recreational vehicle parks: a. Minimum project size of 5 acres; b. Maximum density of 12 spaces per acre; c. Minimum space area of 1,500 square feet, minimum dimension 30 feet by 50 feet; d. Minimum 40 percent common open space/recreation area; e. Front project setback adjacent to public street of 25 feet with combination of 6-foot masonry wall and landscaping to screen all recreation vehicles; f. Interior property lines to be bounded by 6-foot masonry wall and at least 10 feet of landscaping; g. Projects may be single-use or developed as part of a larger resort or residential development; h. RV parks shall be taxed as a transient occupancy use; i. Permitted Accessory Uses. Private recreational facilities and limited commercial directly associated with primary use as approved by Commission. 15. Building Setbacks from the Planned Street Line. The minimum setback in all residential developments within the PR district shall be the designated distances from the ultimate right-of-way line of the streets specified in this title unless otherwise provided in this section: Table 25.10-2: Setbacks from Planned Street Lines Street Type Setback Distance Freeway 50 feet Major 32 feet Arterial 32 feet Collector 25 feet Local 25 feet 16. Two-story, single-family detached building setbacks from project perimeter: a. The minimum setback shall be 100 feet or one lot depth, whichever is more. b. The Commission may waive interior setback requirements when adjacent developments are planned simultaneously. 17. Development standards within the PR districts may be modified through the precise plan process as specified in Section 25.72.030. 18. Approval Criteria. The Commission and/or Council may approve a precise plan only after finding that the requirements of this title and other ordinances affecting the property have been satisfied. In granting such approval, the Commission/Council may impose and enforce such specific conditions as to site development, phasing and building construction, and maintenance and operation as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this title and the General Plan. All development within the PR district shall comply with the development plan as approved and adopted by the Commission/Council. Table 25.10-3: Residential Zoning District Development Standards Measurement/Zoning District RE3 R-13 R-2 R-3 R-1M1 HPR4 P.R.5≥1 ac ≥15,000 sf ≥10,000 sf, but ≤15,000 sf <10,000 sf Residential Density Density (du/ac), min – max 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 5 - 8 3 - 10 7 - 40 7 1/5 ac 4 - 40 Lot Dimensions Lot size, min 40,000 sf 15,000 sf 10,000 sf 8,000 sf 3,500 sf 3,000 sf 20 ac / 5,000 sf –– Lot size, max 1 ac No max 14,999 sf 9,999 sf No max No max No max –– Lot width, min 150′ 90′ 90′ 70′ 50′ 40′ 500′ –– Lot depth, min 200′ 125′ 100′ –--––– Setbacks Front yard, min 30′ 25′ 20′ 20′ 12′ 10′ 20′ / 5′ –– Side yard, min 15′ 15′ 8′5′ 6 5′8′ 10′ / 5′ –– Combined both sides, min 30′ 30′ 20′10′ 6 10′ 10′ ––– Street side yard, min 30′ 15′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 10′ 20′ / – –– Rear yard, min 50′ 20′ 20′ 15′ 15′ 10′ 10′ / 5′ –– Residential accessory structures See Section 25.40.050 (Accessory Buildings and Structures) Coverage Lot coverage, max percentage of lot area 30%35%2 35%2 35%2 60% 75% – 10% 50% Building Measurements Height, max 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC)7 15′ (18′ ARC) 30′ 40′ 18′ _ 40′ Number of Stories, max.1 1 1 2 2.5 3 1 1 3 Dwelling unit size, min 1,500 sf 1,250 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 600 sf 450 sf ––– Dwelling unit size, max –––– 4,000 sf 4,000 sf – 4,000 sf – Site area per dwelling unit, min –––– 4,000 sf 2,500 sf ––– Building pad area, max ––––––– 10,000 sf – Open Space Group usable open space per dwelling unit, min ––––– 300 sf ––– Notes 1. The dimension requirements included in this column apply to a manufactured home park project sites as well as individual sites within the park. The first dimension is for the larger project site. 2. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as 50 percent pending ARC approval, through the design review process. 3. All development standards are based on the square footage shown on the zoning map and not necessarily the physical lot size of a property. Properties only zoned R-1 without a square footage allocation shall comply with standards for < 10,000 square feet. Confirm standards with Planning Division staff for correct zoning designation and lot size development standards. 4. Hillside Development Plan approval process in Section 25.78.020 5. The standards and guidelines presented in this section provide design criteria for the achievement of functional and attractive developments that fit within the context of the City of Palm Desert. Exceptions to the criteria contained within the Development Plan may be appropriate with the application of innovative and unique design techniques in keeping with the character envisioned at the time of approval. 6. Setbacks within the Palm Desert Country Club in R-1 and R-2 have a 5 feet sideyard setback (See Figure 25.10-1 Palm Desert Country Club Setbacks) and a combined setback of 10 feet. 7. Allowable maximum building height is 18 feet with approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Figure 25.10-1 Palm Desert Country Club Setbacks (Ord. 1334 § 12, 2018; Ord. 1324 § 4, 2017; Ord. 1292 § 1, 2015; Ord. 1279 §§ 4, 5, 2015; Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) View the mobile version. From:Lindsey L Harris To:CouncilMeeting Comments Subject:City Council Meeting March 10, 2022, Agenda Item: Action Calendar Item 14 Date:Wednesday, March 9, 2022 11:56:03 AM Dear Mayor Harnik and Council Members, On your agenda for the City Council Hearing March 10, 2022, is Item 14 on the Action Calendar which particularly interests and affects me personally. My prior communication on the subject is included in your Staff Report for the item. The reason I'm writing to you today is that I would like to praise City Staff, in particular Rosie Lua, for being so engaged with our neighborhood and helping us to understand what our current zoning restrictions are, and for moving ahead with the serious study and consideration of possible alternatives. I would also ask that you please approve the Staff recommendations as stated in the report: "After review of the above stated items, staff is recommending the following to the City Council: 1) Modify Table 25.10-3 (Residential Zoning District Development Standards) for R-2 as shown below: A. Reduce height to 15 feet and require a discretionary ARC approval for heights above 15 feet up to 30 feet maximum. B. Reduce the Number of Stories from 2.5 to 2. C. Implement a public notification for projects above 15 feet within the R-2 Zoning District, requiring public notification to immediately adjacent property owners 10 days prior to the ARC meeting. 2) Authorize the ARC to review the second-story design elements to ensure impacts to the adjacent neighbors are minimized." It appears that this recommendation for changes would definitely, at a minimum, reduce the chances for a similarly horrid situation in our neighborhood as the one that is occuring in the Portolesi Family's backyard. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. -Lindsey Harris STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: April 19, 2022 PREPARED BY: Rosie Lua, Principal Planner REQUEST: Consideration for a recommendation of approval to the City Council for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Zoning) relating to land uses. Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2811, recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 22- 0004 to modify Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25 (Zoning). Background On February 24, 2022, staff received direction from the City Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to execute the recommendations contained in the 2021 Commercial Broker’s Report (Report), including adding new land use categories, removing certain land uses from requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and proposing new land use definitions to the Zoning Ordinance. The 2021 Report concluded that the removal of barriers contained in the existing Zoning Ordinance promotes desirable land uses and promotes business activities within the City. The report reviewed a variety of industries and potential new businesses, finding that certain land uses within the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) required a CUP to obtain a business license. The report recommended that the identified land uses replace the CUP with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process. A CUP is a quasi-judicial act requiring a public hearing prior to a meeting date and approval of a Planning Commission to allow a project-specific change in the uses allowed on a specific property. A CUP applies the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and its standards to a specific set of circumstances depending on the intensity of the land use. The PDMC regulates CUPs in Chapter 25.72.050 (Conditional Use Permit), which authorizes the Planning Commission to consider if the use meets the findings and regulates the land uses by applying conditions and setting parameters of the use, including limiting hours of operation, parking restrictions, and business operation activity. The City’s processing time for a CUP is approximately eight to 10 weeks (see Attachment 5). An AUP is an administrative approval decided by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) and regulated by Chapter 25.64.040 of the PDMC. AUPs allow for approval of uses and activities whose effects on adjacent sites and surroundings need to be evaluated in terms of a specific development proposal. It is anticipated that uses qualifying for an administrative use review are minor in nature, only have an impact on immediately adjacent properties, and can be modified and/or conditioned to ensure compatibility. The City’s ZA is the Director of Development Services and/or an assignee. The ZA is required to evaluate the use through findings criteria similar to that of the CUP and may impose reasonable conditions of approval to ensure it complies with the findings required, performance criteria, and development standards contained within the code. An AUP may be April 19, 2022 –Staff Report Case No. ZOA 22-0004 Land Uses – Broker’s Report Page 2 of 3 referred to the Planning Commission for review and approval if the proposed use includes a more complex evaluation pursuant to Section 25.64.040(C). An AUP requires a notice of decision as the public notification providing the public a 15-day appeal period. The City’s processing time for an AUP is approximately 47 days (see Attachment 6). The report has identified the following land uses as desirable businesses to benefit from streamlined processes such as changing from a CUP to an AUP in certain zoning areas: i. Restaurants in the Planned Commercial (PC) and the Service Industrial (SI) Zoning designations. ii. Daycare centers in PC Zoning designation. iii. Health clubs in the SI Zoning designation. iv. Indoor automotive sales in SI Zoning designation. The report also recommended clarifying the existing land use definitions for “Animal clinic” to make the distinction between veterinary services and pet boarding and adding these specific land uses to Table 25.16-1: Matrix for Commercial and Industrial Districts. In addition, staff is proposing to modify Chapter 25.34 (Special Use Provisions) more specifically for hotels to amend the requirement to provide a restaurant with three meals a day or designate a portion of their property for an attached or detached building within their site. Discussion Staff’s review of the recommended land uses determined that the impacts of the proposed uses can be mitigated through the AUP process to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. The AUP requires the project to be evaluated based on its effects on adjacent sites and can request the proposal to be modified or conditioned. Therefore, the level of scrutiny in reviewing proposed projects does not change. In fact, the PDMC allows for the ZA to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a final decision at their discretion. The PC is a district that provides flexibility for commercial and mixed use with zoning designations. The PC zoning designations include more intense uses as permitted within the zone. In comparison, the intensity of the restaurant and daycare uses within the PC zoning can be mitigated through conditions of approval or modification to the plan. Similarly, in the SI zoning designation, restaurants, health clubs, and indoor automotive sales are uses with less intensity than allowed in the zoning. However, the parking requirements in SI have less parking demand than a commercial area; therefore, ensuring there is adequate parking will be a determining factor for these uses. Animal clinic is a land use definition within the PDMC; however, it is not included in the Land Use Tables (Table 25.16-1: Matrix for Commercial and Industrial Districts) for any commercial or industrial districts. The City has received requests for pet boarding business operations not necessarily accompanied by an “Animal Clinic” as defined in Chapter 25.99, which allows pet boarding as incidental. This ordinance amendment clarifies the definition of “kennel” and “pet boarding” and includes these land use as an AUP for the PC Zoning designation. The City has received several proposals for hotels; however, the current PDMC presents challenges that have dissuaded developers. Chapter 25.34 (Special Use Provisions) requires that a hotel development provide a restaurant “either within the building itself, attached or adjacent to the building, together with room service for hotel guests (a continental breakfast may constitute April 19, 2022 –Staff Report Case No. ZOA 22-0004 Land Uses – Broker’s Report Page 3 of 3 one of the three meals).” As stated, if this restaurant component is not provided, then the developer must allocate a portion of the site for an attached or detached restaurant. The hotel developers are providing feedback that hotels are typically proposing to be in commercial areas that already have restaurants. In addition, most of the sites remaining in the City for hotels do not have the acreage needed to separate out a restaurant pad within the site. Public Input Public noticing was conducted in accordance with state law. A public hearing notice was published on Sunday, April 10, 2022, in The Desert Sun. Environmental Review The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert finds that the adoption of this ordinance has been analyzed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). It has been determined that the amendments do not meet the definition of a project because the amendments do not have the potential to cause either a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan’s goals of ensuring the quality of life for the community. Because the amendment is not a project under CEQA, they are not subject to further environmental review. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the amendment and in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Findings in support of this ZOA are contained in the Resolution No. 2811, attached to this staff report. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Martin Alvarez Martin Alvarez, Dir. of Development Services N/A Veronica Chavez Director of Finance N/A Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager L. Todd Hileman: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution No. 2811 2. Draft Exhibit A: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. March 10, 2022, City Council Staff Report 5. PDMC CUP & Processing Time 6. PDMC AUP & Processing Time PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2805 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) RELATING TO LAND USES CASE NO: ZOA 22-0004 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of April 2022, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above-noted; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) modifies the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Chapter 25 (Zoning) to change land uses and update definitions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, in reviewing all the facts and any testimony given, adopts the following as its Findings in recommended approval of the ZOA to the City Council: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert hereby finds that: A. The City of Palm Desert, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and B. The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to establish by ordinance the regulations for land use and development. SECTION 2. Amendment. The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert recommends that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, approve and adopt the PDMC amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning) as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase in this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is not a “project,” as defined in the (CEQA because it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and concerns general policy and procedure making. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2811 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 19th day of April 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR ATTEST: MARTIN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION “EXHIBIT A” ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 1. Amendment to Palm Desert Municipal Code. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.16 is hereby amended as follows: Table 25.16-1: Use Matrix for Commercial and Industrial Districts Commercial/Industrial District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) OP PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4 SI Special Use Provisions Residential Uses Caretaker housing N N N N N P 25.16.040.A Condominium C C C N C C 25.16.040.B Dwelling, duplex C C C C C C 25.16.040.B Dwelling, multifamily C C C C C C 25.16.040.B Dwelling, single-family C C C N C C 25.16.040.B Group home C C N N C C 25.16.040.B Single-room occupancies N N N N N C Homeless Shelter N N N N N P Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, and Public Assembly Uses Amusement facility, indoors N N C C C N Amusement facility, outdoors N N N C C N Community facility N N N N N P Day care center N C A C A C A C A N Emergency shelters N P N N N P Entertainment facility, indoor N N N P P N Entertainment facility, outdoor N N N P P N Institution, educational C C C N N C Institution, general C N C N N C Institution, religious C N C N N C Open space (developed or natural) N P P N P N Recreation facility, commercial N N P P P N Recreation facility, private N N N P P N Commercial/Industrial District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) OP PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4 SI Special Use Provisions Theater/auditorium N N P P N N Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Commercial communication tower C C C C C C 25.16.040.C Commercial parking lot C N N N N N Public utility installation N N N N N P Public facility (utility or service) N N N N N P Utility facility N N C N N P Retail, Service, and Office Uses Adult entertainment N N N N N C 25.16.040.D Ancillary commercial A P P P N A 25.16.040.E Art gallery A P P P P C Art studio A P P P P C Bed and breakfast N A A A A N Business support services N N N N P P Cannabis retail N C C C C N 25.34.120 Cannabis testing and research laboratory C N N N N C 25.34.120 Convention and visitors bureau N N P N P N Drugstore N P P P N N Financial institution C P P P N N Grocery store N P P P N N 25.16.040.F Health club, gyms or studios N A P P P C A Hotel N A A A P N 25.34.070 Liquor store N P P P N N Liquor, beverage and food items shop N P P P P N Medical, clinic P N P P N N Medical, office P P P P N N Medical, hospital N N N N N C Medical, laboratory P N N N N P Medical office, accessory N N N N N P 25.16.040.G Commercial/Industrial District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) OP PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4 SI Special Use Provisions Medical, research facility P P N N N C Mortuary N N N N N P Office, professional P N P P P P Office, local government P N N N N P Office, travel agency P P P P P N Outdoor sales N N A A A A Personal services N P P P P N Restaurant A C A C A C A P C A 25.16.040.E / H Retail N P P P P N Retail, bulky items N N N P P N Spa N N P P P N Time-share project N N N C C N Veterinary clinics/animal hospitals A N A A N A Pet boarding N A A A N A Automobile and Vehicle Uses Automotive rental agency N N N N P P Automotive gasoline station N N C C N C 25.34.090 Automotive service facility N N C C N P 25.34.090 Automotive sales new and used (outdoor/indoor) N N N N N C (outdoor) A (indoor) Automotive sales of accessory parts and supplies N N N P P N Vehicle storage facility N N N N N P 25.16.040.I Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses Cannabis cultivation N N N N N C 25.34.120 Cannabis delivery N N N N N C 25.34.120 Cannabis distribution N N N N N C 25.34.120 Commercial/Industrial District (P=Permitted; A=Administrative Use Permit; C=Conditional Use Permit; N=Not Permitted) OP PC-1 PC-2 PC-3 PC-4 SI Special Use Provisions Cannabis manufacturing N N N N N C 25.34.120 Industrial planned unit development N N N N N P Light industrial and research and development N N N N N P Maintenance facility N N N N N P Pest control facility N N N N N P Preparation of foodstuffs N N N N N P Production of home and office decor accessories N N N N N P Warehouse or storage facility N N N N N P Temporary Uses See Section 25.34.080 1 The establishment may be permitted with an administrative use permit but may be elevated to a conditional use permit at the discretion of the ZA based on: parking, traffic, or other impacts. SECTION 2. Amendment to Palm Desert Municipal Code. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.99 (Definitions) is hereby amended as follows: 25.99.020 Land Use Definitions Animal clinic. A place where animals no larger than the largest breed of dogs are given medical or surgical treatment; a facility primarily for treatment of outpatients and where for only a short time, critical patients are kept longer than 24 hours. Boarding of animals shall can be incidental to such clinic use. The term “Veterinary clinics or animal hospital” should be used interchangeably with “Animal Clinic”. Kennel. Any lot where four or more dogs or cats over the age of four months are kept or maintained. The term “Pet Boarding” should be used interchangeable with “Kennel.” SECTION 3. Amendment to Palm Desert Municipal Code. Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.34 (Special Use Provisions) is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 25.34.070 Hotels A. Purpose. The purpose of the special use regulations for hotels is to establish special site development and improvement standards. B. Minimum room size. The minimum guest room/suite size for any hotel shall be 330 square feet. Hotel projects shall have an overall average guest room/suite size of at least 375 square feet. C. Restaurant required. All hotels shall provide a multipurpose (three-meal) restaurant either within the building itself, attached or adjacent to the building, together with room service for hotel guests (a continental breakfast may constitute one of the three meals). When the restaurant is detached from the hotel, it may be constructed before or after the hotel is developed. D. HVAC required. All hotel developments shall utilize central air conditioning systems or vertical fan coil systems, or other specifically approved systems. Window- or wall- installed air conditioning systems are prohibited. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated study of impacts. Project Location/Description: Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Approval of staff’s recommendation will consider expanding certain land uses and their definitions to reduce city processing timeframes for business licensing within the City. Recommendation: Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council approval of the first reading of certain land use changes within Chapter 25 (Zoning) and pass to the second reading. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on April 19, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and- commissions/planning-commission-information-center. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from April 10, 2022 to April 19, 2022. Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Rosie Lua, Planning Manager. Please submit written comments to the Planning/Land Development Division. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Rosie Lua, Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611, Extension 480 rlua@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN MARTIN ALVAREZ, SECRETARY APRIL 10, 2022 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: February 24, 2022 PREPARED BY: Eric Ceja, Deputy Director of Development Services Deborah Glickman, Management Analyst REQUEST: Request for direction regarding recommendations contained in the 2021 Broker’s Report Recommendation Receive and File the 2021 Business Report; and By Minute Motion, provide City staff direction to: 1) Initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) to execute the recommendations contained in the 2021 Commercial Broker’s Report to add new land use categories, remove certain land-uses from requiring a Conditional Use Permit, and to add new land use definitions to the Zoning Ordinance. Background Analysis In January 2021, the Economic Development division hosted an online Broker’s Forum for Coachella Valley’s commercial real estate brokers. At the forum, Economic Development and Planning division staff members introduced themselves to the brokers and presented the brokers with the following updates: · Presentation of pertinent Buxton matches · Discussion of potential City incentives · Highlights of upcoming commercial and residential projects · Outdoor dining opportunities The forum was extremely well received, with an attendance of fifteen (15) brokers from (nine) brokerages. Due to the positive reception, staff intends to host another Broker’s Forum, tentatively planned for March 2022. In the fall of 2021, staff scheduled individual meetings with the commercial broker’s listed in the report. The intent of these meetings was to: · Introduce new staff and organizational changes that better serve their needs · Gain additional insights to the commercial leasing and sales market through 2021 · Understand specific opportunities and challenges in Palm Desert · Solicit feedback in how the City can be helpful. February 24, 2022 – Staff Report Direction on Broker’s Report Recommendations Page 2 of 3 W:\Staff Reports - Shared 2\Staff Reports 2022-0224\5 - Clerk's Office - 2022-0224\Business Report\0 CC Staff Report (Brokers_Bsuiness Report).doc The commercial brokers eagerly shared information with staff and they discussed specific challenges related to leasing. Staff was able to make suggestions on what process improvements would be beneficial in their leasing and sales efforts. The outcome of the meeting resulted in the preparation of the 2021 Commercial Broker’s Report, as well as recommendations to remove barriers contained in the existing zoning ordinance. As indicated in the report, staff is recommending changes to the zoning ordinance to identify desirable land uses and remove the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements in lieu of Administrative Use Permits (AUP). The AUP process provides staff-level review and approvals for businesses with notification to adjoining properties, as opposed to the more lengthy public hearing process of a CUP. In addition, staff is recommending to expand land use definitions within the Zoning Ordinance and provide a distinction for Veterinary and pet boarding uses. A summary of the report is provided in the attached “2021 Commercial Broker’s Report.” Business Report Summary: Below is a summary of the content of the attached 2021 Business Report, which details City staff and business activities in roughly the last quarter of 2021. During this time, staff interacted with more than two-hundred and fifty (250) of the City’s businesses via email, phone and in-person. Through these interactions, staff discovered that the City’s businesses are recovering well from the difficulties they faced in 2020 and 2021 in relation to COVID-19. The areas in which businesses continue to struggle in are finding and retaining staff, and the increased costs associated with it. When businesses needed assistance with issues related to the City and its processes, the City assisted in the following ways: · Assistance with Business Licenses · Information on zoning for new businesses · Demographic information Over the course of this time, 166 new business licenses were issued and commercial vacancy rates dropped throughout the City. Staff researched Citywide vacancy rates, including north Palm Desert, and El Paseo, and found that rates were near or at a ten (10) year low across the board. To assist these new businesses, and existing ones, a “Doing Business in Palm Desert” page was added to the Engage Palm Desert website. This page details steps to opening a new business or navigating changes to an existing business, as well as resources for entities outside of the City. Next steps for business development in the City include the following: · Hosting a brokers’ forum in the first quarter of 2022 to touch base with the brokers and find out what business needs have come to their attention. · Continued outreach to Unite Palm Desert loan recipients. · Continued outreach and visits to both new and existing businesses including administering a survey to them requesting information on their future plans and ways in which the City can assist them. February 24, 2022 – Staff Report Direction on Broker’s Report Recommendations Page 3 of 3 W:\Staff Reports - Shared 2\Staff Reports 2022-0224\5 - Clerk's Office - 2022-0224\Business Report\0 CC Staff Report (Brokers_Bsuiness Report).doc Economic Development Subcommittee On January 24, 2022, Development Services/Economic Development staff met with the Economic Development Subcommittee (Councilmember Kelly and Councilmember Jonathan) to review the 2021 Commercial Broker’s Report and the 2021 Business Report. Feedback from the subcommittee was significantly positive. Staff specifically sought the Subcommittees response to the recommended actions in the Broker’s Report, and after some discussion on the technical aspects of the changes to the zoning ordinance, the subcommittee did recommend that we bring the recommendations forward to the City Council. In addition, the Subcommittee suggested bringing both reports forward for City Council consideration and information. Request for Direction Staff is requesting direction from the City Council related to the recommendations contained in the 2021 Commercial Broker’s Report including: 1) Initiate a ZOA to: a. Review the Land Use Tables contained in the Zoning Ordinance and to identify desirable land-uses, including restaurants, daycare centers, health clubs, and indoor automotive sales, and change the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). b. Review land use definitions and expand specific land use categories including: veterinarians and pet boarding. Fiscal Analysis There is no fiscal impact related to the staff’s recommendation. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Martin Alvarez Martin Alvarez Dir. of Development Services N/A Janet Moore Director of Finance Andy Firestine Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager, L. Todd Hileman: L. Todd Hileman ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2021 Business Report 2. 2021 Commercial Broker’s Report Economic Development December 2021 Business Report G:\Econ Development\Business Report\Business Report - CC Staff Report.docx Between late September and December 2021, Economic Development staff had more than 250 interactions with Palm Desert businesses. More than 125 of these interactions were in person, and the others were via phone or email. The interactions fell into the following categories • Ribbon Cuttings • Participation in the PDACC monthly membership and board meetings • Participation in the DVBA monthly meetings • Business Visits/Business Advocate Introductions • Businesses reaching out to me for assistance with opening a new business • Requests for Business License information • PPE Requests • Updates from Unite Palm Desert loan recipients • Outreach to businesses in CIP project areas (i.e., President’s Plaza and Alessandro Alley) Responses from Businesses Overall, businesses reported that they are doing well. • The prominent issue that businesses are having is difficulty with staffing. Businesses reported that they are setting up interviews and the applicants are not showing up. In cases where applicants attended interviews and were hired, businesses reported that the new employees were not committed and often stay only one to two weeks. • Businesses reported that their existing employees are salary shopping by interviewing with different employers that are willing to pay more. They are then using the higher-wage job offers to get a raise with their current employer. One restaurant reported that it is paying dishwashers $20 per hour. • If businesses had issues with the City of Palm Desert, it was that they were having a difficult time getting a Business License. This complaint primarily occurred at the beginning of my outreach. As HDL Consulting (the third-party processor of the City’s Business Licenses) has settled into its licensing process the complaints have diminished. These complaints were solved by staff reaching out to HDL on the business' behalf. • The other complaint staff heard on a couple of occasions is that businesses were having difficulty getting Fire Marshal inspections. To assist with these complaints, staff worked with the Permit Center and the Fire Marshal’s office to remedy permit issues and ensure a continuity of service Unite Palm Desert Loan Recipients • After the State of California mandatory shut down due to the COVID-19 virus, the City Council approved several different grants and forgivable loans to assist the City’s businesses pay for regular operating costs and for restaurants to expand Economic Development December 2021 Business Report G:\Econ Development\Business Report\Business Report - CC Staff Report.docx their dining decks. Through these programs, the City gave its businesses more than 300 grants/loans valued at over $2 million dollars. • Outreach was conducted to select Unite Palm Desert loan recipients. Every recipient with whom staff spoke expressed gratitude to the City for the assistance. • One business said that the loan allowed it to remain open and not lay off any of its employees throughout the shutdown. • Staff only spoke with one loan recipient for which the shutdown took too high of a toll on its income and as a result had to close. Staff will continue to conduct outreach to the loan recipients to gain a better understanding of specific businesses needs and what assistance, form the City, is most helpful for their particular needs. Assistance Starting a Business Staff regularly speaks with businesses that are interested in locating or relocating in Palm Desert. • The most frequent question staff received from the business owners and commercial real estate brokers was about zoning and in which areas of the City their particular business can locate. • Other questions included what permits would be needed, and suggestions for marketing their business. • Through conversations with staff, businesses expressed that it would be helpful to have a step-by-step guide for how to open a business in Palm Desert. A guide already exists, but it is outdated. Staff is working on updating the information and publishing it on the Economic Development section of the City’s website by March 2022 Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce (PDACC) • The PDACC has been busy reaching out to new businesses and has been a good resource at directing businesses with questions to City staff. Business Survey • An updated business survey was completed in October 2021 and published on the City’s Engage Palm Desert webpage. Additionally, CV Strategies has been engaged to conduct further outreach to El Paseo businesses and encourage them to take the new City of Palm Desert Business Survey. To date, six (6) businesses have taken the survey. • A few of the answers from the responding businesses are as follows: o 3 of the businesses had been located on El Paseo for 2-3 years and 3 for 10+ year o 3 businesses identify as retail, 1 as hospitality, 1 personal services, and 1 as other (photography) o Located in Palm Desert because of the clientele or because it was close to their home Economic Development December 2021 Business Report G:\Econ Development\Business Report\Business Report - CC Staff Report.docx o When their lease was going to expire, 3 of the businesses planned to renew, 2 responded “other” and one did not respond to this question. Business Licenses During this time, 166 new Business Licenses were issued to businesses within the City including home-based businesses (40). Notable business openings include: • El Paseo o Athleta o Be Seen Optics o Fig and Nash o Firebirds Retail Store o Goldfield home o Kyle X Shahida o Larkspur Grill o Olivier Napa Valley o Rebecca Taylor o Sundance • Around the City o D' Coffee Bouteaque (Country Club and Monterey) o Elder Love Thrift Shop (Bump and Grind Shopping Center) o European Flower Power (San Pablo) o Fusion Training Studio (Palms to Pines Shopping Center) o Habit Burger (North Sphere) o Haus of Fades (Washington and Country Club) o Holiday Inn Express (Technology Drive) o The Stretch Zone (Highway 111) o The Wellness Mode (Highway 111) Vacancies (Based on CoStar data) Citywide Vacancies throughout the City of Palm Desert in Q4 2021 are at 6.3%, which is down -1.3% from Q4 2020. This marks the second lowest vacancy rate in 10 years. The lowest vacancy rate was 5.8% in Q4 2019. Economic Development December 2021 Business Report G:\Econ Development\Business Report\Business Report - CC Staff Report.docx 10-Year Vacancy Rate - Citywide El Paseo between Portola and Highway 74 Economic Development December 2021 Business Report G:\Econ Development\Business Report\Business Report - CC Staff Report.docx 10 Year Vacancy Rate – El Paseo North Sphere (Country Club between Monterey and Washington north to I10) Economic Development December 2021 Business Report G:\Econ Development\Business Report\Business Report - CC Staff Report.docx 10 Year Vacancy Rate – North Sphere Next Steps • Update of the Economic Development section of the website. • Continued outreach to Unite Palm Desert loan recipients. • Continued outreach and visits to both new and existing businesses. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2021 COMMERCIAL BROKERS REPORT As a follow-up to the January 2021 Broker’s Forum, the City’s Economic Development team initiated meetings with several commercial brokers active in Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. The intent of these meetings was multifaceted: •Introduce City staff and recent organizational changes at City Hall. •Allow staff to better understand current market conditions: “What are you seeing?” •Understand specific opportunities and challenges in property transactions and leases. •Ask “How can the city help your efforts in leasing/sales?” The report below highlights feedback and themes provided by the participating firms. In addition, the Economic Development team is providing specific recommendations for implementation in the coming months. Commercial Brokers Engaged •Baxley Properties: Matthew Longstreth •Coldwell Banker: Steven Lyle •Desert Pacific Properties: Paula Turner •Johnson Commercial: Matt Johnson •Lee & Associates: Shawna Strange and Maggie Montes •NAI Capital: Lynn Coker and Nancy Portolesi •Smoketree Investments: Josef Jonathan •The Firm: Adam Gilbert •Wilson and Meade: Noel Ramos, Monique Millan, Heather Sharp, Matt Rifkin, and Bill Sanchez (Capital Building Services) Consistent Themes 1.Property Management Companies often manage commercial/office properties between Beaumont to Coachella. Some have larger regional, state, or national footprints. 2.At least three (3) relatively large office/retail buildings/sites are set to close escrow soon on Highway 111. Sales and leasing 1.Commercial/retail space is performing well. 2.Leasing is slow as there is limited to no space available. 3.Less than 2% vacancy on warehousing 4.Less than 1% vacancy on industrial. Most potential tenants are looking for 1,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet with roll-up doors. 5.Even with industrial space scarce, rent prices do not justify new construction (at least not yet). The City could consider zoning more land for industrial type uses. Office 1.Office around 10% vacant. 2.There is an approximate 18-month lag until lenders come after owners for missing payments. There is a need for a bridge to help owners make missing payments and fill space. 3.Class A office space performs well with little to no vacancy. However, Class B/C spaces are too large, outdated, and require substantial investment. 4.Smaller office space and shared space are desired. Retail 1. Retail is around 10% vacant but performing well. On-Going Issues 1.Older building stock is outdated and not meeting the needs of today’s tenants 2.Commercial and office rents don’t justify investment into property. 3.Businesses want to locate in Palm Desert because of its central location; however, finding space is problematic and zoning hurdles impede this process. 4.Potential tenants are extremely hesitant to go through any city discretionary entitlement process. 5.Property owners are also hesitant to go through any city discretionary processes related to architectural design for building façade updates. 6.Difficulty with/understanding the One Eleven Development Code and requirements for parking. Although generally agreed that parking reductions are good, tenants still require ample parking available in proximity to the storefronts. PD gets gold stars on the development process and staff availability! Staff Recommendations Based on the feedback provided staff is recommending minor changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and other process improvements that will assist in the opening of businesses within the City. 1.Provide Zoning Ordinance review and identify specific land use (i.e., restaurants, daycare centers, health clubs, and automotive sales) which would benefit from a reduction in City processing. Staff recommends reducing the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for these uses and supplant the CUP requirement with an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process, which can be reviewed by Development Services staff. This process would result in a reduction of review time from 3-4 months for a CUP to 1-2 months for AUP approval. Requires Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.Expansion of land uses and their definitions. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance identifies a broad range of land uses categorized as either: o Residential o Recreation, Resource Preservation o Utilities o Retail, Service, and Office Uses o Automotive Uses, and o Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses. The specific business types identified in these categories are narrow in their scope and may no longer correspond to changes in business practices. Specifically, the definition of Medical Offices is broad enough to include veterinarian use but prohibits overnight stays/boarding. Staff recommends identifying such desirable uses and either specifically calling them out in the land use table and/or expanding their definitions within the Zoning Ordinance to align with current business practices. Requires Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3.Development Process “Quick Notes.” Some of the feedback received was that a “quick notes” version of the City’s development process be prepared and available to brokers, potential businesses, and the public. By creating these “quick notes,” the City can abbreviate and accurately explain the development process. Staff is preparing these infographics now and will have them available online and at the permit center. Infographics will also be prepared explaining what improvements will trigger additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements and explain what the exception process entails. Requires Staff initiated and in process. Anticipated Completion February 2022 Palm Desert, California Municipal Code Title 25 ZONING Chapter 25.72 DECISIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 25.72.050 Conditional Use Permit A. Purpose. In order to give the use regulations the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, in certain districts, conditional uses are permitted, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the zoning regulations and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes, the Commission is empowered to grant or deny applications for conditional use permits for such conditional uses as are prescribed in the district regulations and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of conditional use permits subject to the right of appeal to the Council. B. Application requirements. Application for a conditional use permit shall be filed with the Department on a form prescribed by the Director and shall include materials as required. C. Investigation and report. The Department shall make an investigation of the application and shall prepare a report thereon which shall be submitted to the Commission and made available to the applicant prior to the public hearing. D. Hearings. The Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit. The hearing shall be set and notice given as prescribed in Section 25.60.060 (Public Hearing and Public Notice). At the public hearing, the Commission shall review the application and drawings submitted therewith and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. E. Action of the Commission. The Commission may grant a conditional use permit as the permit was applied for or in modified form, or the application may be denied. A conditional use permit may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, payment of drainage fees; requiring special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, and walls; requiring installation and maintenance of landscaping; requiring street dedications and improvements; regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress; regulation of traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours of operation and methods of operation; control of potential nuisances; prescribing standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds; prescription of development schedules and development standards; and such other conditions as the Commission deems necessary to ensure compatibility of the use with surrounding developments and uses and to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. F. Findings. The Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan. G. Effective date of the use permit. The decision of the Commission shall be final within 15 days from the date of the decision unless an appeal has been filed with the Council. H. Lapse of conditional use permit. A conditional use permit shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date on which the use permit became effective, unless prior to the expiration of one year a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the use permit application, or a certificate of occupancy is issued for the structure which was the subject of the use permit application, or the site is occupied if no building permit or certificate of occupancy is required; provided that a use permit for a public utility installation may be valid for a longer period is specified by the Commission. Prior to the expiration of the permit, the applicant may request a one year time extension by filing with the Commission. I. Modification of conditional use. Modification, expansion, or other change in a conditional use; provided, that minor revisions or modifications may be approved by the Director if he or she determines that the changes would not affect the findings prescribed in Section 25.72.050.F (Findings), and the application for revision or modification is filed within one year from the date the original conditional use permit becomes final, does not change the use designated in the original conditional use permit, does not increase, reduce, or alter the size or shape of the premises to which the original conditional use permit pertained, and does not extend the time in which the actual establishment of the conditional use permit or the commencement of construction under the conditional use permit shall take place. J. Suspension and revocation. Any conditional use permit issued pursuant to the provisions of this title may be modified, discontinued, suspended or revoked by the Commission upon receiving satisfactory evidence that the permittee, its agent(s), employee(s), or any person connected or associated with the permittee: (1) has failed to comply with any applicable provision of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, including but not limited to the City’s building, zoning, and health regulations; (2) has failed to comply with any condition imposed by the conditional use permit; or (3) has allowed the existence of or created a public nuisance in violation of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The modification, discontinuance, suspension, or revocation shall be made only after a duly noticed hearing before the Commission, which hearing shall be conducted within 40 days of learning of the violation. K. Commission determination. 1. Not more than 30 days or less than 10 days prior to the hearing, written notice of the time and place of hearing shall be given to the permittee. The notice shall specify in general terms the grounds upon which the Commission intends to modify, discontinue, suspend, or revoke the conditional use permit. The notice shall be deemed complete when delivered to the permittee by personal service, when sent by certified mail to the permittee’s last known address, or when posted in a conspicuous place on the property for which the conditional use permit was issued. 2. Notice of the hearing shall also be mailed not more than 30 days or less than 10 days prior to the hearing to all persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County as owning property within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property subject to the hearing and all persons who have filed written complaints with the City regarding the subject property. 3. After giving notice and conducting the hearing, the Commission may modify, discontinue, suspend, or revoke the conditional use permit. As part of any such action, the Commission may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate, including those necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property to the neighborhood; to eliminate, lessen, or prevent any detrimental effect thereon; or to assure compliance with other applicable provisions of the law. Any such action shall be supported by written findings, including a finding that it does not impair the constitutional rights of any person. 4. The decision of the Commission shall become final 30 days following the date on which the conditional use permit was suspended or revoked unless an appeal has been filed with the Council in accordance with Section 25.60.080 (Appeals) of this code. L. New applications. Following the denial of a conditional use permit application or the revocation of a conditional use permit, no application for a conditional use permit for the same or substantially the same conditional use on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial or revocation of the conditional use permit. M. Use permit to run with the land. A conditional use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall run with the land, and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure which was the subject of the conditional use permit application. However, the City shall be notified of any change of ownership within 90 days of its occurrence. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) Contact: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk: 760-776-6304. Email: cityclerk@cityofpalmdesert.org Published by Quality Code Publishing, Seattle, WA. By using this site, you agree to the terms of use. Submit Complete Application Planning Commission Meeting Review and Public Noticing Approval with Conditions City of Palm Desert Conditional Use Permit (CUP) One Day Six to Eight Weeks Two Weeks Five Days Eight to Ten Weeks Note: An appeal can be filed within 15 days of the date of decision pursuant to PDMC Section 25.60.080 Palm Desert, California Municipal Code Title 25 ZONING Chapter 25.64 DECISIONS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 25.64.040 Administrative Use Permits A. Purpose. Administrative use permits allow for approval of uses and activities whose effects on adjacent sites and surroundings need to be evaluated in terms of a specific development proposal. It is anticipated that uses qualifying for an administrative use review are minor in nature, only have an impact on immediately adjacent properties, and can be modified and/or conditioned to ensure compatibility. B. Applicability. This section applies to land use requiring an administrative use review as designated with an “A” on the allowed use tables, including Table 25.10-1 (Use Matrix for Residential Districts), and Table 25.16-1 (Use Matrix for Commercial and Industrial Districts). C. Review process. The ZA is the approving authority for administrative use permits. However, the ZA may refer an administrative use permit to the Commission for review and approval. 1. Public notice of the application submittal and pending determination shall be made in accordance with Section 25.60.060.C (notice of Zoning Administrator decision). 2. ZA determination shall be based on standards and criteria set forth within this code and shall be accompanied by brief, written findings and a determination. D. Findings. The ZA shall approve, or approve with conditions, an application for an administrative use permit after making all of the findings below. If the ZA does not make all of these findings, he/she shall deny the administrative use permit. 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this zoning code, municipal code, General Plan, and any applicable specific plans or City regulations/standards. 2. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and development standards. 3. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. E. Conditions. In approving an administrative use review, the ZA may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings required, as well as any performance criteria and development standards contained within this code. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 2013) Contact: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk: 760-776-6304. Email: cityclerk@cityofpalmdesert.org Published by Quality Code Publishing, Seattle, WA. By using this site, you agree to the terms of use. Submit Complete Application Notice of Decision to Approve Review and Public Noticing Approval with Conditions City of Palm Desert Administrative Use Permit (AUP) One Day Thirty Days Fifteen Days One Day Forty-Seven Days Note: An appeal can be filed within 15 days of the date of decision pursuant to PDMC Section 25.60.080