HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-20 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
' AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 — 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may
address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving
his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of
three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission.
Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on
items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers
but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and
recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting.
Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda,
including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the
Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection
during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred
Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484.
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 OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION
AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE
AGENDA.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2016.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Action:
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
Vill. 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 additional
time is authorized by the Planning Commission.
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a variance request to reduce the front
yard setback from twenty feet to eight feet to accommodate an existing casita
structure at 72-700 Somera Road. Case No. VAR 16-305 (John and Debra
Trudeau, Palm Desert, California, Applicants).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2685, denying Case No. VAR 16-305.
Action:
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve Conditional Use Permit 16-310
for a new 5,100-square-foot lounge/bar located at 73-750 El Paseo, and approval
of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act. Case No. CUP 16-310 (Barbeau, LLC, 73-750 Ell Paseo, Suite 101, Palm
Desert, California, Applicant).
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2686, approving Case No. CUP 16-310.
Action:
X. MISCELLANEOUS
None
2
GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Agenda\12-20-16 agn.docx
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2016
XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
B. PARKS & RECREATION
XII. COMMENTS
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 16th day of December, 2016.
Monica O'Reilly, Recording Secr ary
I
M
I
Please contact the Planning Department, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760)
346-0611, for assistance with access to any of the agenda, materials, or participation at the meeting.
3
G\PlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Agenda\12-20-16 agn.docx
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
• PRELIMINARY MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 24 < — 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHA
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, P ESERT, CA 92260
I. CALL TO ORDER F
G
Chair John Greenwood called the me to order at 6:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: �
Commissioner Ron Gregory * r
Commissioner Kathleen Kelly
Commissioner J detto '
Vice Chair N eL '
Chair John , nwood
Staff Present. ' .
h
ity �ney
n Sten =.irec Community Development
�'. ark Green woo ' irec -- f Public Works
Ceja, Princip lann�
KA, ,Swartz, Ass F to Planner
Mond 'Reilly, A ' ,'nistrative Secretary
III. PLEDG IANCE
Chair Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
None
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 2016.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented.
a:
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a on extension for Tentative
Tract Map 36351 and Precise Plan 14-170 f ivide of 30+ acres into
111 single-family home lots, and one 8 s lot a future multi-family
development located on the southwest, er of Dinah re Drive and Dick
Kelly Drive. Case Nos. PP 14-1 d TT 36351 ey Schroeder,
Ponderosa Homes, Pleasanton, ia, Applicant).
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve t e- xtension (until ecember 2,
2017.
An amendment to the .., was pr d by Vice Chair DeLuna,
substituting the words "to b es to `" balloons no more than 40
days a calendar ear" for th ords bu sses to have balloons on
a staggered 40 days e
Upon a mo '°�# ° y Comm 'oner K second by Commissioner Pradetto, and a
5-0 vote of the nning C ission, Consent Calendar was approved as
amended. (AYES: Via, Gre , Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None).
VII. C, f M D OVER
,_�; one °
VIII. USINESS
None
IX. PUBLIC H GS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve Precise Plan and Conditional
Use Permit No. 15-370 for The Living Desert's Master Plan consisting of a
new entry plaza, a new ticketing building, a new retail building, a legacy
garden, six new animal exhibits, a new banquet building, parking lot
modifications, and approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP/CUP
15-370 (The Living Desert, Palm Desert, California, Applicant).
2
&Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Chair Greenwood stated that he is an employee of Prest Vuksic Architects, the
architect for the above-mentioned project; therefore, he recused himself.
Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (staff report is
available at www.citvofpalmdesert.org). Staff recommended approval and offered
to answer any questions.
Vice Chair DeLuna commented that the project would be completed in three
phases. She asked if it is correct that the Planning Cora sion is being asked to
approve the project in counterparts.
Mr. Swartz responded that the Planning Com Neing asked to approve
The Living Desert's Master Plan for Phase ase Phase 3. Phase 2
and Phase 3 would still need approval b Architectu eview Committee
(ARC).
Vice Chair DeLuna clarified that the would o nsider the a� #ecture.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. ��
p � .
Vice Chair DeLuna commen }'..., Je Livin ert would have a net loss of
one parking space, with the p Ong ficatio he inquired if the Planning
Commission would approve the arkin ific : � ns even though it would
happen until not ha r �e r �.�
�� � in the �
Mr. Swartz r d that is rect. =
Vice Chair DeLun tare C h ; g open and invited public testimony
FAVORIN PPO mat
ALLE N President/CEO of The Living Desert, Palm Desert,
4
alifornia offeo an any questions.
issioner Ro T, regory wished there were more projects brought to the City
simij the one g proposed by The Living Desert. He stated the project is
very i sive.
Commission athleen Kelly asked what happened to the plan previously
approved, whi' h were not implemented.
MR. MONROE responded that they used the previous plans as a basis for the
design of the new proposed project. They took the initial ideas and refined them
for their current operations and plans for the park's future.
Commissioner Kelly agreed that the proposed project looks very exciting.
3
G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
With no further testimony offered, Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing
closed.
Commissioner Pradetto pointed out that the draft Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2680, states "the parcel is located within the Service Industrial
zoning district." However, in other areas of the resolution, it references being in a
Public/Institution zoning district.
Mr. Swartz remarked that the Service Industrial zoning Pict is an error, and he
would correct the resolution.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that there i o the old entrance, but
the proposed project would really bring Th g De : ` --to the next level. It
would also set it apart for the tourists they peopl t have not been
exposed to The Living Desert. '
01
Vice Chair DeLuna understood tha tower ithin the a ed height
range. She pointed to a picture in the 1 nt and voiced her concern that
the tower looks taller than Eisenhower` : he noted that the architect's
renderings indicate the tow ler than th k.
f
MR. MONROE answered from , ' s . tie au that the tower is not taller
than the peak and it is not Else 'gwer P ra
Ms. Jill Trem., J d that ublic hea ing has been closed. If Vice
Chair DeLu s additio I questiX for the applicant, the public hearing would
need to be ened an k the ap nt to address the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairuna ape.; or '� y ,.. j n, and declared the public hearing open
for adds f ` y
ice Chair De L invi e architect to address the Planning Commission.
AVID PRE Prest Vuksic Architects, Palm Desert, California, offered to
ans nY questi
Vice Cha said that the architecture is spectacular. She asked if the
tower is tall ridgeline behind it.
MR. PREST responded that the tower is approximately 750 square feet from
Portola Avenue, and believed it would not be seen from the road. He explained
that the idea was to have a landmark for the entrance and when inside, have a
landmark to find the exit. Mr. Prest said he is not sure how tall the mountain is
behind the tower, but he believed it was more than 50 feet. He noted that the
materials would be earthy colors to blend in with the area. He also noted that
there would be date palm trees, which would be approximately 20 feet tall that
4
GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
line the walkway on both sides. The tower would be an element seen when
inside the plaza.
Vice Chair DeLuna said she has heard concerns voiced in the community about
preserving the ridgelines.
MR. PREST explained that the rendering was taken from a bird's-eye
perspective.
Vice Chair DeLuna stated that the tower still looks t an the ridgeline if you
are looking down.
Commissioner Gregory asked how tall the to , e." .
MR. PREST replied 50 feet tall. ,.
Commissioner Gregory remarked th tower ' so 750 f the road.
He said that the problem inherent with pe is that you try fo maximize
something in the picture, which in this cas chitect is trying to get as many
elements of the architectur a picture ssible. However, it creates an
artificial feeling of height with tain behi . e tower.
Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the Wer w Iler n the mountain.
Commissioner go not ate
Vice Chai `` una stat at she f r s the tower is within a permitted height
so there is n is fo he a visual objection and a concern about
prey the eline eciated the additional information.
x
With . dditiona imo ered, Vice Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing
clo '
issioner Kel ' ommented that if someone was standing at the foot of the
tow king up, t iew would be blocked. She would have the same concern
as Vic F it D if it was a large continuous mass. However, as a tower, it
is not dis a said the tower is beautifully designed to be compatible with
the environ
Commissioner Pradetto moved, by Minute Motion, to approve Case No. PP/CUP
15-370 and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2680, subject to conditions.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 4-0-1 vote (AYES:
DeLuna, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood).
5
GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council
to approve an update to the City's General Plan, the University Neighborhood
Specific Plan, the One Eleven Development Code, and recommending
certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015081020),
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. Case Nos. GPA/EA 16-261, ZOA/CZ 16-262, ZOA/CZ
16-263 (City of Palm Desert, California, Applicant).
Mr. Stendell thanked the Planning Commission for r 'ng the General Plan
Update documents. He provided a PowerPoint entation, and briefly
summarized key milestones of the General Plan a (staff report is available
at www.cityofpalmdesert.orq). He stated that th as been very exciting,
and passed the presentation over to Mr. Burr'
Mr. Matt Burris, Raimi & Associates, sp the Strategic P� 'sion, which set
the stage for the General Plan Upd e summarized key s ies, and the
General Plan direction and vision. ut they Ft eived from t ision, they
developed 11 General Plan Elements : al policies to help layout how
new areas should be built in the City of Pa rt. He mentioned there are two
key documents to help im t the idea t are in the General Plan: The
One Eleven Development Develo t Code) and the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan ( P o spo the City Center Area Plan,
which included Highway 111 San ve The 111 Development
Code lays out fob stricts ine 1p direct the architecture and
design of the s.
Mr. Eric Princi Planner, ntinued to present the UNSP. He
communicate t s als` a General Plan are to take advantage
and l v t ge th ities.'z'£ 400-acre area identified as the UNSP.
T t ho � y could connect the neighborhood to the universities. The
P sets am k to accomplish the connection of the neighborhood to
e universities. r st d university staff met extensively to discuss the plan,
the universit upp a plan. Mr. Ceja discussed the four neighborhood
d{ ations and7, development standards of the UNSP. He emphasized that
the x ctive oft NSP is to create a lively center that provides housing
option choi. in close proximity to the university, and build on what the
universit
Lastly, Mr. rk Teague, author of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
continued with the presentation. He informed the Planning Commission that the
EIR is an information document and not a decision-making document. He
explained that they compare what they think is going to happen against what
they are willing to accept as a community to happen, which are called thresholds.
He said there is a significant change in thresholds that are going through
California in a variety of things. He compared the City's project to those
thresholds. The General Plan does not get developed in a vacuum, and they do
6
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
not ignore the environmental process. City staff looked at what the environmental
impacts are likely to be, how the impacts are going to affect the community, and
how the city would deal with the impacts. So they built self-mitigation and policies
in the plan to allow that to occur. He noted that the Draft EIR is circulated to the
public to review and comment. He briefly went over the regulatory process, state
and federal permits, and mitigation measures of the EIR. Finally, he listed the
EIR impacts that are above significant levels; however, they may not be
significant until two to three years from now because of the change of thresholds
statewide.
Mr. Stendell concluded that the City Council aske to return to them with a
General Plan amendment that has the tools n it the ground running,
which is the reason the 111 Development C d the P are included with
the General Plan. He noted that the goals objectives o General Plan are
long-term. He asked if the Planning Cora ion had any quera�s
Chair Greenwood recommended t he Cora sion go in t order for
approval of each report and to ask quest: sp to that report.
Commissioner Gregory ca ted that h �'d not have the benefit to be
involved in the early studie" _ General . and Specific Plans, so he
reviewed the reports after th ea was e by others. Work on the
documents was well done. He that he ' stions he had as he read
the documenrndSpec
se to h . hiss"� ective, the effort of trying to
create vibran is we cted. He s not experienced in studying
General PI ' Plans; ever, he felt it was just a plan. Although,
anything t ing is tak .- a very educated guess at what is down
the road 20 f ear et t it will not be what is being planned, but
migh lose. �d tha '° ead made him very comfortable, and his
avin 'vable comm u' ity was well addressed.
hair Greenwo '� gre th Commissioner Gregory. He said it has been a very
,. iting process, _ d tho ..t City staff and the consultants did a phenomenal
a stated tha : Paseo improvements were not discussed much. He asked
Mr. `�°, r 's to spea n the El Paseo improvements and what they have gone
throug he p o years. He questioned if the City should look at potential
strategies r build the successes of El Paseo such as shorting road
widths, larg ewalks, lower right-of-ways, and more patio space.
Mr. Burris responded that one reason the plan does not talk a lot about El Paseo
is because they kept hearing over and over that El Paseo is great and to not
mess it up. Similarly, they also heard people say they want a place to go to with
the family. In the end, they decided to let El Paseo continue to do what it is doing
so well, then see if they could bring the same success to areas around El Paseo.
If the downtown area becomes very successful and El Paseo seems it is
beginning to lag and not be as special, Mr. Burris suggested that the City revisit
7
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
strategies for El Paseo. He conveyed what they talk about today might be
completely obsolete in 10 to 15 years.
Chair Greenwood asked Mr. Burris to talk about the catalysts and economics of
moving forward with the zoning measures and improvements to Highway 111,
and what would give developers the ability to make improvements to existing
buildings.
Mr. Burris replied that a big part of the Highway 111 idor improvements is
parking. The physical configuration of lots constra' at could be done on
many of the lots, plus restrictions and the am i f potential development
makes it uneasy economically to tear down a b build something new.
He stated that two-story buildings would not ono feasible. However,
by removing the on-site parking requirem fe economy ange greatly. He
said that the General Plan lays out so itial framework c pts on how to
move forward in the future for u A ing parking, which moving the
requirement to have on-site parking.
Mr. Stendell added that economically a tli building starts to make sense
for a developer but not rofitable. r-story building starts getting
profitable, and a five-story b'� ° comes ive enough that a developer
could invest heavily in the pub ea `
Chair Greenwoo d what enc rms of the improvements to
the public rig ay ow mu es the City rely on a developer to provide
the capital ' ke impr ments,` ,T how much is the City going to invest to
jump-start 'ng the i ements.`
P �
Mr. ell re Cha od had a good question, but he would
et saver at toni is meeting. He encouraged the Planning
missio ��. ,. ok General Plan documents without dollars and cents as
consideratio e G al Plan is intended to be a grand plan and a grand
n that states City e goals. City staff would figure out the mechanics
an ;` e City Coun ould be responsible for creating the capital improvements
list fter year, , is how the implementation of the plan would occur.
Based one a General Plan is currently laid out, Chair Greenwood asked
if the node Pablo Avenue and Highway 111 is where it all radiates from.
Mr. Stendell replied yes. He expressed that the node for San Pablo Avenue and
Highway 111 is ground zero for the General Plan.
Commissioner Gregory inquired if there was discussion about the difference
between the north side of Highway 111 versus the south side. He said that many
buildings on the north side have been there 40 years or more. He imagined how
little incentives there would be for developers to look with any glee towards
8
G\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
taking on new development on the north side of Highway 111. Years ago the
possibility of super blocks was discussed where the frontage road might be
blocked in an opportunity to create more square footage for development and
parking. He noted that he did not see that concern being addressed in the
General Plan unless he didn't see it.
Mr. Stendell responded there is not a specific designation for the north or south
side of Highway 111. He said it was discussed by the Technical Working Group
and at community meetings. He mentioned the nort ide has a significant
amount of potential because it is seven feet lower t 0 south side so it has
the ability to absorb more height.
Commissioner Gregory remarked that the n ide is a of a negative with
respect to retail; there are pros and cons.
�r
Chair Greenwood referred to the un" y zoning map, he as' . . what type of
university staff foresees this area c g to. I City provi r t the space
needed to adequately attract and prov, the mercial are that students
would be looking for? "
g
Mr. Ceja replied yes. He s City st, et with the president of the
university. The president expl d hat th vision the school growing
to 10,000 to 12,000 students. said ersi as plans for educational
and athletic facil" - ampus tl not providing dormitories or
student housi -sit e press entione '`it would also be great to have
something Commu' wher iversity staff and students could live and
feel more ected to t ommuni addition, the president said it would be
nice to hav tires for '4 students to go, such as bars and
rest s.
ir Gree pc to the area in red on the map (off of Frank Sinatra),
.,nd voiced his ern the area caters more to residents and not so much to
tints. He que ned i Xe area should be more in the core. He said that for
t idents near raid Ford Drive, from a bikeable and walkable circulation, it
wou° more of re element to get maximum use. He wondered where the
studen uld space. Would it be off of Gerald Ford Drive, which is near
the unive ? asked if the university's master plan is going to incorporate
commercial ill take that use.
Mr. Ceja believed that the university is looking at commercial use along Cook
Street north of University Drive. He noted that the concentrated area closer to
Cook Street would be a denser housing mix so you could get students in close
proximity to the university as well. He stated that commercial use currently exists
along Cook Street, and they felt housing is needed closer to the university, so
people are still within a half mile or a quarter mile to bike or walk to services in
the area.
9
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Chair Greenwood commented that the Land Use Matrix is a useful tool for the
developers early in the development process. He asked how staff sees the
process moving forward so that there is a cohesive and a streamline approach to
all the connecting spaces, especially from the public side.
Mr. Ceja replied that the Land Use Matrix in the document helps City staff plan
areas cohesively with a streamline approach. The document defines subdivision
standards, block lengths, how to create walkable areas, how to provide amenities
for the residents, and more. He stated that the docume ows staff to meet with
a developer or interested person from the public, ow them exactly what
the City is looking for. Staff is also looking for st onnectivity to make sure
streets are designed well for biking, walking, an Tp are adequate utilities.
Chair Greenwood inquired if staff feels th guage with Specific Plan is
strong enough in regard to walls and th ration of individr mmunities.
Mr. Ceja answered that the Sped . ian has - items in th troductory
chapter, which provides examples of in s that are encouraged and
discouraged. He stated that there is a .°''': ry detailed appendix (design
guidelines) attached to the c Plan. � F
Commissioner Kelly asked w it for a ing to turn its back to a
street, green, park, aseo, or of en
Mr. Ceja expl - "tha n you t the main arteries of a street, typically it
is the back t mes. It i home t does not face a public street that is active
or lively. �'
o'
Co 'on con i se if a building has its back to a park or
; es creating an age of division. Such as the homes on
ola Ave the of the homes creates a division between the homes
rid the street r ere' t nteraction.
� .
endell replie at if asked, staff could look at that section of the plan and
rewr' or provid etter explanation.
Chair Gr T quired if there is a minimum square footage within the plan.
Mr. Ceja replied there is not.
Chair Greenwood commented that he sees the tiny home models on television,
and he does not know if the tiny home trend would continue. He was not sure if
the tiny home should be included in the plan. He said it should be something to
look into, if ever proposed.
10
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Mr. Ceja responded that the development standards as presented do not
specifically identify a minimum home size; however, it would lend themselves to
many housing type options, including small homes.
Chair Greenwood referred to page 4-16 of the UNSP, and asked if there was a
typo under the NM (Neighborhood Medium) zone. It states lot widths of 22 feet
minimum and setbacks of 5 feet, which lends to a 12-foot wide house.
Mr. Ceja said that staff could look into it. He did not . ve it was a typo. He
explained with a denser area in a NM, there could be 'er lot widths.
Chair Greenwood understood that if the nu to be manipulated, it
would affect the densities. He said that loo at the "...,; Neighborhood Low)
zone and the interior lot dimensions of 40 width, the creative ways to
arrange homes and still create beautif ractive communist However, you
start looking at models that are more im in nature and that c� tplso be done
very well. He is concerned they are tting th elves up to g odels and
development standards that are not g to e City,s standa d. He noted
there is a need for start-up communities homes, and he would want to
make sure that the quality a ,, architectu not end up burying the brunt.
Mr. Ceja mentioned that a lopr� am ached the City about the
university area, and their arcr cturaI ok ok at the development
standards. They le to fi 1, size types into the development
standards. T : �d e - hing f tached t etached units and units with
courtyards. `
Chair Green as zon Ilows mixed-use. Are you able to have
retai a firs N
wF. Ceja r :� . that re is limited mixed-use. He noted that they are not
inking at groc '-tore ars in the NM zone.
Greenwood ted that the UNSP is very flexible. He looked at the height
req ents. He d what the process would be if a developer came in with a
greate J ht an sed on that height, the city would have a better building.
Mr. Ceja ag hat the plan has a lot of flexibility built into it. He communicated
that if there is a minor amendment, the plan had language that authorizes the
director to make modifications. However, he is not sure if it would include
heights. He mentioned that there is the Precise Plan process, which also allows
flexibility in terms of design on the development standards without having to
amend the UNSP.
Commissioner Gregory mentioned that a lot of projects with higher density
development are procuring in Palm Springs. He found that the requirements of
11
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
meeting the standards of higher density actually encouraged more interesting
architecture. Some of the city's concern of walled communities encouraged
developers to come up with backyards that have gates opening onto the streets
so there is some interaction with other homeowners, streets, and community
parks in an effort to open up what has been closed off. He felt that the higher
density as structured in the plan is encouraging.
Chair Greenwood declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony
FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. ;� ,,
Chair Greenwood noted that prior to the meeti a Planning Commission
received several emails pertaining to utility and
MS. MERILEE COLTON, Palm Dese : alifornia, ented that she
participated in the Envision Palm Dese ess. She also p ated in the ad-
hoc committee for utility underground' ' April 2016, the City t . cil approved
the recommendations made by t d-hoc ittee. Follo' o- are the
recommendations: 1) Adopt the underg in I utility lines in alm Desert
as a goal of the City; 2) Develop an under , g master plan that would have
an element with a metric t ., Pre progr owards the goal of community-
wide utility undergrounding, ent the er plan; and 4) Create a line
item in the budget dedicated t.` cili tility u rounding. She hoped that
the language in regard to utilit ,ergro ink 'ed in the General Plan.
With no further testi :offe Chair ood decl red the public hearing closed.
sty,�x
Commissi ~Kelly sta that she :t specific refinements to the document.
Due to the b ' f i d f' fficiency, she suggested beginning by
havi main o a �' � ommendations made by staff, with the
ded. n progress make specific amendments to the main
R ' ion, an with h of the subtopics with a yes or no vote.
x Chair DeLu oice r concern that the process would get delayed over
a ._:endment, wi `,ut being considered or discussed in advance.
Commis er P tto remarked that Commissioner Kelly's suggestion is a
great id ned for approval.
Therefore, Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 2681, 2682, 2683, and 2684, recommending to
the City Council to approve an update to the City's General Plan, the UNSP, the One
Eleven Development Code; certification of the EIR (SCH No. 2015081020); and
adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring
Reporting Program (Case Nos. GPA/EA 16-261, ZOA/CZ 16-262, ZOA/CZ 16-263).
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly, with the following amendments.
12
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Chair Greenwood clarified that a yes or no vote would be taken for each
amendment.
Commissioner Kelly replied yes.
For procedural purposes, Vice Chair DeLuna asked if they are voting.
Commissioner Pradetto remarked that they are not voting, but going into
discussion mode.
4
Commissioner Kelly provided the Planning Co ners with her proposed
amendments. First amendment, she said t t uncil addressed and
embraced a specific goal on utility undergr, u ng. F ,at reason, it makes
sense for the goal to be included in the Ge J Plan. ;
Commissioner Kelly moved to recom -the following proposnendment to
the General Plan: a
Chapter 9 (page 138), add Goal 8. Exists ies. Support undergrounding
of existing utilities.
Policies:
8.1 Utility del► ' nsider afety considerations when
progressing t fu rgrou fall utility ines.
8.2 Colla ion and ovation. x e community outreach, assistance with
formation of sm an loration of new funding mechanisms to
ach rogre this
� Timeta . ' Per fly update a master plan on this topic to assure
rontinued succ
Motion econded by � mmissioner Pradetto.
Hypot �.' Ily sp rig, Chair Greenwood asked what would be the process and
requirem ity undergrounding for a new commercial development plan
based on th uage proposed by Commissioner Kelly.
Mr. Stendell responded that all new development and redevelopment is required
to have utilities underground in accordance to an existing City of Palm Desert
ordinance. He said that the goal proposed by Commissioner Kelly speaks largely
in the areas of town that are built and already exist.
Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the proposed amendment is worded as a goal rather
than a requirement.
13
G.\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Commissioner Kelly replied that is correct.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that as he read it, there is no obligation,
commitment, or a timetable.
Commissioner Kelly communicated that the goal is an effort to capture the action
taken by the City Council on April 14.
Vice Chair DeLuna disclosed that she did not bring the , neral Plan documents
to the meeting so she is a little at a lost for perspec .. d unable to look what
the wording in the General Plan is.
Chair Greenwood said there is no wording 'n e Gen Plan specific to the
utility undergrounding goal. Commissio elly is p ing to add the
language.
Mr. Stendell commented that the ui ndergi jng was not ght during
the process. As a result, it was not ad ed e General Plan. `He said the
amendment is to add the oals to re "';. City Council's desires. Staff
supported the proposed am r ant.
After brief discussion on the ` `` 'ng' `` Ms.� blay made clear that the
Planning Commission would be ing o ' os mendment at this time.
Upon a motio om ioner econd by Commissioner Pradetto, and a
5-0 vote of the PI g Comm. ion (AY "�� .DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and
Pradetto; NOES: ), the a ment wa `; proved.
4.4 t
Com, ; ' 'oner ` me ere is not an expressed policy about
s rast r e for existing evelopment. She said she has spoken with
stituents fee t their areas are lacking in the necessary stormwater
frastructure. ever;, .' is not the time or place to figure out if they are right
wrong. If th is a ed for stormwater infrastructure in an existing
d ,� pment, then., se needs should be addressed.
Comm er K motioned to recommend the following proposed amendment
to the Generale
Chapter 9, un `er Goal 1 (page 134), add a new Policy 1.14.
1.14 Stormwater infrastructure for existing development. Continually assess
stormwater infrastructure needs for already developed property, explore
impediments to addressing identified needs, and pursue financially sound
solutions.
14
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Vice Chair DeLuna noted that she is at a disadvantage because she does not
have the original General Plan documents to refer to. She asked Mr. Stendell if
there was once a stormwater issue due to the developer, and the residents were
looking for relief from the City and expected the City to correct the issue.
Mr. Stendell said he does not recall the issue. However, the policy proposed by
Commissioner Kelly is a reflection of what the staff does in the Department of
Public Works on a daily basis. He stated that having it as a goal in the General
Plan is a good thing because it supports what the staff dy does.
Mr. Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works, for clarification that the
amendment would not apply to private gated co =, He reported that there
are several private communities in Palm D e at h' '- rainage issues and
those are their private issues to solve. H bald not wan .. effort to confuse
the matter that the City would be involv ose private ma
Vice Chair DeLuna said that she is i ipped t pond becau ' he did not
expect the amendments. She stated i m ent is a goal and what they
are talking about is a concept is one thing. er, if they are talking about any
kind of requirements, then t{ N omething .
Mr. Stendell remarked it is im an mber` ' requirements do not come
out from the General Plan. B _d on ti en d's comments, he asked
Commissioner K would t r amendment.
Commissio elly ask Mr. G ° ' wood if it would be adequate if it read
"Continual ;o ess ubl ormwat structure needs. . ."
Mr. r ,nwoo es.
Com goner Pra sec ',�,, d the motion.
` missioner G x` ry m oned that he is a little uncomfortable because he
a"' as not expe g these concerns. Nonetheless, he agreed with what was
being posed. H ` aid he is not familiar with the process of the General Plan
and th ecific preparation. He is not familiar with whether these things
are expe ` _ e as presented. He voiced his concern with unintended
consequent uch as the one Mr. Greenwood brought up. He questioned if the
amendments are appropriate for inclusion or amending the General Plan.
Chair Greenwood asked if it is correct that the recommendations would go to the
City Council for consideration, but not necessarily adopted in the plan.
Mr. Stendell made clear that the Planning Commission is sending a
recommendation for approval to the City Council. He reiterated that the
Commission's motion is approval of staff's recommendation, subject to
15
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
amendments. He stated that if the Commission has a concern, it is the staff's
responsibility to let the Commission know if there is a liability. He also stated that
he has not seen anything presented that would be a concern.
Commissioner Pradetto shared that he supports the amendments because he
looks at it as airing on the side of caution for the City and the residents. As a
Planning Commissioner, he is going to air on caution of the residents. Setting a
policy that the City and staff continue to look out for the best interest of the
residents, even if it is not always something that the CJ a .: ould want to do; it is
our government that was created to serve the reside
Vice Chair DeLuna wished she had more time to consider the
amendments.
Commissioner Kelly remarked that she stood Vice Chai una's concern.
However, she supplied all the amen s to Mr. Stendell so s ould assess
them. She stated that the Brown Act losed he m going to person on
the Planning Commission to inform thy , f t ndments. She felt it was a
fairly expedited process to make specific kanges. This is their chance to
make changes so they hav their job t r the best perspectives they can
knowing that this is not the la'," %hetate t the City Council would have
an opportunity to fully study th mes that putting forth.
r
Chair Greenwo . d that have time to review the
amendments th to the'. ouncil. �
Mr. Stend", mmenteq t it is set City staff would propose something to
the Council nt f PI J.ing Commission recommended. If there
is a , rn, st disci e staff report to the City Council.
missio eg , sked if any of the proposed amendments are redundant
. the sense , they already covered by other codes, ordinances, or
visions with thy' ity.
Mr. dell replie at the General Plan is the highest level document for the
City, a , e is with the potentially redundant amendments since it is the
City's gui �cf ent.
Chair Greenwood called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None), as amended.
Commissioner Kelly stated that the next amendment pertains to sidewalks. She
explained residents have expressed concerns with very busy streets, and they
desire a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
16
GAPlanning\Monica OReiIly\Planning Comm issionQ0161Minutes110-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Commissioner Kelly moved to add the following language (words underlined) in
Chapter 4, Policy 3.2 (page 72):
3.2 Prioritizing improvements. Prioritize pedestrian improvements in areas of
the city with community and/or educational facilities, supportive land use
patterns, expressed community interest in better pedestrian infrastructure, and
non-automotive connections such as multi-use trails and transit stops.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto. ,
Vice Chair DeLuna inquired what "expressed unity interest in better
pedestrian infrastructure" means, and if it was ressed in the General
Plan.
Commissioner Pradetto understood tha W consistent with t dal of the entire
General Plan.
Vice Chair DeLuna asked if the amend is r ant.
Commissioner Kelly replie Policy 3. nes which location should get
priority. She said the conce the re is are not on the list of how
they determine priority for pe tri ly im ments. She felt that they
should explicitly daiSlay their r ect f as sing the prioritization on
sidewalks.Vice Chair ��,� na corn �� ,� icated t they have been involved in the General
Plan Upd ;' rocess four ye . 4 and in the last hour the Planning
Commission ing ke 1 ndments. She repeated that she does
not er do She Ernst any of the concepts, she voiced that
s r bad f=. chance to process and research the amendments. She
ed she ot p fed to amend the General Plan.
missioner K' asse that she wished she had more time too, but there
h t been a p opportunity for the Planning Commission to perform their
fund as Comm ioners. She claimed that it is the correct time to make
amen W, s.
Mr. Stende med that this is the appropriate time to make changes to the
document as it would be for any other project that goes before the Planning
Commission. He had the understanding by communication 15 days ago that the
Commission understood they could come back to this meeting, with specific
changes for the public hearing. He apologized to the Planning Commission if any
other portrayal had been made.
17
GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Comm ission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Vice Chair DeLuna commented that she wasn't prepared for specific
amendments without the chance to think about it. However, if it is acceptable by
the Commission and staff, then it is the policy they are going to adopt.
Commissioner Kelly restated that the amendments were shared with staff, and
they are simply refinements to assure that it could be the best it could be.
Vice Chair DeLuna again said she is not against any of the specifics just caught
off guard. ry
Commissioner Gregory addressed Vice Chair D and said he shared her
concern. Staff answered his question earlier, indicated there are no
ramifications or unintended consequences i he a ments. He felt the
changes are safe. f
Chair Greenwood called for the vol t °�tl the motion carve �.a 5-0 vote.
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kell Praderendm
OES: Non e
Commissioner Kelly continued with the ent, and mentioned she
was appointed to the City' s and Re ion Taskforce for the Envision
process. One major idea t rom th kforce was the inclusion of
pervasive recreational oppo itie I ne ects. She said that the
Taskforce heard research uvving uris routinely asked about
recreational and oppo i he rce felt that branding Palm
Desert as a vvh ou do rti a to ask because every place you turn
there is an rtunity t ercise ther it is park equipment, stretching bars,
or mile m r, on the walk. Sh oted that the idea is not featured in the
General Plan:° mi bell .r d if they make the following addition, it
wou help anni ' � �en working on projects.
imissio Ily oned to add the following language (words underlined)
in er 3, Policy 5. x age
changing re format. Provide incentives to transform existing, auto-
one suburban ters into neighborhood destinations by adding a diversity
of us ` ddin asive opportunities for recreational artistic and social
en a em ing new pedestrian connections. . .
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto. He noticed that when he would
hang out at the Civic Center Park and wanted to get food, he would have to get into his
car and drive somewhere or go on a longer walk. If there was an easier connection, he
thought you would feel the foot traffic Commissioner Kelly talked about. He stated he is
in favor of creating public spaces with retail to urge foot traffic.
Chair Greenwood called for the vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote.
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None).
18
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Lastly, Commissioner Kelly stated that the last amendment is a matter of making
something explicit. She said one of the themes of the General Plan is to create
an environment, which is more attractive to those who love to walk places. To
show balance and attentiveness to all of the residents, you have to stay mindful
of those who either cannot walk a great distance, or have difficulty doing so. She
mentioned her regular route home takes her past the Daily Grill. Every time she
passes by, there is a car stopped illegally to let someone out of the car. They are
stopping illegally due to a physical need or because they want to.
Therefore, Commissioner Kelly moved to add the ing language (words
underlined) at the end of Chapter 3, Policy 6.5 (page 48):
. . . with attention to the needs of the ed an iorresidents."
Mr. Stendell made a recommendatio his amendmen ossibly stand
alone. He said after reviewing the aryl x ent with the consulta ° : �, nd City staff,
they felt the goal was well stated,° may no completely plicable to
unbundled parking. They are consideri aki new policy (Policy 6.6), with
the language Commissioner Kelly propose
Commissioner Pradetto said ..,second t otion.
Commissioner Kelly stated that is c e w' taff's recommendation.
Chair Greenwo ske w w the ment wou tl read.
Commissi radetto Bested th llowing amendment for new Policy 6.6:
"Dis an rest .; a pd ways to improve the mobility of the
3 �
1, ommissioner � �� m to add Policy 6.6, and language that recognizes the
impor��,.' of planning the s of the disabled and senior residents in parking
design. E "' .missioner Pr tto seconded the motion and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES.
DeLuna, G` ',wood, Gre Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None).
Commiss ory commented that his office is located above the Daily Grill.
The entire along Ocotillo Drive is set aside for dropping off disabled
people. Howe er, people like to stop right at the corner. During season, it is
extraordinary disruptive, very annoying, and has caused a lot of friction.
Commissioner Kelly also commented that they should not make criminals out of
perfectly nice people. The City should try to understand what people's wants and
needs are in a design to accommodate them.
19
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
Commissioner Gregory remarked that a design to accommodate the disabled
and senior residents was done at the Daily Grill. He is concerned that in the zeal
to help would create more problems. He pointed out that there is also signage
that says "Please Do Not Stop on the Corner."
Commissioner Kelly noted that the motion does not specifically address the Daily
Grill.
Commissioner Pradetto said that he is comfortabl voting. If there are
commissioners that are not comfortable, there i thing preventing the
Commission from tabling the motion for further dis I n before the final vote.
Vice Chair DeLuna asked Commissioner Pr whic to,ion he was referring
to.
Commissioner Pradetto answered ,i ' they are on the m motion of
approving the staff's recommendatio the am ents.
Chair Greenwood asked the commissione had any other amendments or
changes to any of the plans ted. The ission replied no.
Commissioner Pradetto com .de` anke staff and the consultants
for work done to complete the eral ate is a big fan of the plan.
They are taking : tep, wh wt slo 'then it would be all at once.
Vice Chair na com ted tha a has been involved in the General Plan
Update pr for appr r` ' ately fo ars. She expressed her excitement and
regret. Her e en y p iced and her regret for the fact that the
proc over ke ie consultants for their outstanding effort
w y in producing process culminating in a document that will
e the C Pal' sert for decades to come. The result is comprehensive,
orough, well ght nd can serve as a guideline for development of the
. . hern sphere the - ucational corridor as it literally comes out of the
co�d. It would r e existing corridors, current residential neighborhoods, and
� ial and o., tanding retail corridors. The addition of the City Center
concep innov and could utilize existing locations, particularly along San
Pablo A opportunities to include healthy pedestrian and bicycle
options. It's an exciting process and an exciting time to be associated with
the City so committed to the future and future generations of Palm Desert
residents. She ended by saying that the City has an outstanding staff.
Chair Greenwood called for the main vote and the motion carried by a 5-0 vote
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Kelly, and Pradetto; NOES: None).
20
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
PRELININARY MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2016
X. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
None
B. PARKS & RECREATION
None
XII. COMMENTS
n.
Mr. Stendell commended City staff a he cons ts. It has ba pleasure
and an enjoyment, and thanked eve for g part of the General Plan
Update process.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT .
With the Planning Commissio : ¢ ncur n hai eenwood adjourned the
meeting at 8:26 p.m. `
REENWOOD, VICE CHAIRPERSON
ATTE
RYAN STE ? SE ARY
PALM DESER COMMISSION
MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY
21
GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2016\Minutes\10-19-16.docx
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY FEET TO EIGHT FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE AN EXISTING CASITA STRUCTURE AT 72-700
SOMERA ROAD
SUBMITTED BY: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
APPLICANT: John and Debra Trudeau
72-700 Somera Road
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: VAR 16-305
DATE: December 20, 2016
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2685
2. Legal Notice
3. Applicant's Statement
4. Code Compliance Report
5. Aerial of Property
6. Applicant provided Architectural Exhibits
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2685
denying a variance request to reduce the front yard setback from twenty feet to
eight feet to accommodate an existing casita structure located at 72-700 Somera
Road.
Executive Summary
The applicant has applied for a variance application to maintain an existing casita structure
located in the front yard setback. The structure was built without permits in 2004, and the City
has been pursuing corrective action since. The City's variance provisions require the Planning
Commission to make specific findings in support of a variance application. Based on the
application submitted, the applicant is unable to demonstrate findings to support the variance
request; therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the request.
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 16-305: 72-700 Somera Road
Page 2 of 4
December 20, 2016
Background
A. Property Location:
The property is located along the north side of Somera Road, between the Highway 74
Frontage Road and Alamo Drive. The property consists of two lots totaling 21 ,600 square
feet in size. The property is developed with a single-story detached single-family home,
including pool, patio, and a three-car garage. An approximately 400-square-foot detached
casita structure is also on the property located eight-feet from the front yard setback on
Somera Road.
B. General Plan and Zoning:
Zoning Designation(s):
• R-1, 10,000: Residential Single-Family
General Plan Land Use Designation(s):
• Conventional Suburban Neighborhood
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: R-1, 10,000: Residential Single-Family
South: R-1, 10,000: Residential Single-Family
East: R-1, 10,000: Residential Single-Family
West: R-1, 10,000: Residential Single-Family
Project Description
The project is a variance request to maintain an existing casita structure within the front yard
setback. The applicant owns two adjoining lots, totaling 21 ,600 square feet, in South Palm
Desert on Somera Road.The properties are zoned R-1 Sing le-Familyfor detached single-family
homes. In 2005, the previous owner constructed a casita structure without building permits on
the property.After review of the structure, it was determined that the structure does not conform
to the City's development standards and could not be permitted at its existing location. The
Planning Department is unable to approve the structure at its current location; therefore, the
applicant has applied for a variance.
Analysis
A. Project History:
In 2005, the previous property owner applied for an Adjustment application to reduce the
front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet to accommodate a new casita structure. Planning
staff approved the adjustment in accordancewith Section 25.46.030 of the Municipal Code;
however, the property owner never completed building plans to construct the casita. The
GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\VAR\VAR 16-305\VAR 16-305 PC SR.doc
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 16-305: 72-700 Somera Road
Page 3 of 4
December 20, 2016
property owner proceeded with non-permitted construction of the casita unit, and was
subsequently issued a notice to stop work bythe City's Building and Code Departments.The
property owner refused to correct the violation and sold the property.
In 2010, the property was sold. The new property owner was informed of the non-permitted
structure and was directed to permit the structure. In 2015, a special inspection of the
structure was performed by City Building Inspectors and the City's Planning Department. It
was determined that the structure was built eight-feet from the front property line and could
not be permitted at its current location.
The property owner has pressed the City to permit the structure at its existing location. The
owner has attended City Council meetings, met with the previous City Manager, and met
with staff from the Community Development Department.The City has continued to reinforce
its decision that the structure never obtained permits, was built in the wrong location, and
that staff could not approve the structure. The applicant has therefore applied for a variance
to modify the setbacks on his property so that the structure can remain in place.
B. Land Use Compatibility:
The placement of a casita structure within the Residential Single-Family zoning district is
permitted, subject to the development standards in that zone.The zoning standards for this
zoning district require a front yard setback of 20 feet. In this case, the structure was
constructed eightfeet from property line.The variance to reduce the front yard setback by 60
percent is not compatible with the character and development standards in South Palm
Desert.
C. Variance Provisions:
Section 25,72.070 "Variances" contains information related to the application of property
variances within the City of Palm Desert. Per this section, variances"shall be granted only
when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this title deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classifications."
The two properties in question and the casita structure itself do not contain special
circumstances that would warrant a variance.These two properties are flat, developed,and
are similar in shape and topographyto other surrounding lots. Nothing at these properties
deprives this property owner of privileges enjoyed by others. These properties have no
special circumstance that prohibits the property owner from complying with the development
standards for this zoning district. In fact, the property owner has two adjoining lots, making
the property twice the size of surrounding properties.
GAPlanning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\VAR\VAR 16-305\VAR 16-305 PC SR.doc
Staff Report
Case No. VAR 16-305: 72-700 Somera Road
Page 4 of 4
December 20, 2016
Summary
Staff does not support the issuance of a variance for this proposal.The casita structure did not
obtain proper building permits when initially constructed. Staff notified the property owner that
the structure could only be permitted if it complied with the City's development standards;which
it cannot. The structure's placement is outside of the development standards,which if approved,
would set a precedent for allowing structures in the front yard setback, and the property owner
has not demonstrated that this property is deprived of privileges enjoyed by other similar
properties. In addition, the properties are twice the size of other surrounding lots and there is
ample room on the property to comply with the development standards for this zoning district.
Environmental Review
The Director of Community Development has determined that the variance request is exempt by
Section 15303 "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has prepared a Notice of Exemption for the Planning
Commission to consider.
Findings of Approval
Section 25.72.070 "Variances" requires the Planning Commission to make four (4) findings in
support of the variance request. These findings cannot be made and staff has prepared a
resolution of denial for the variance request. The findings for denial of this project are contained
in the Planning Commission Resolution attached to this staff report.
Submitted By:
Enc Ceja, Princip Planner
Department Head:
.-f�
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
\\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Eric Ceja\Case Files\VAR\VAR 16-305\VAR 16-305 PC SR.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2685
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY FEET TO EIGHT FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE AN EXISTING CASITA UNIT LOCATED AT 72-700
SOMERA ROAD
CASE NO: VAR 16-305
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Pal . ` ': sert, California, did on
the 20t" day of December, 2016, hold a duly noticed public hew `' : to consider the request
by John and Debra Trudeau, for approval of the above note
WHEREAS, the parcels are located in the R si tial -Family (R-1) zoning
district, which allows for detached single-family h and variou's essory structures,
including casitas as permitted uses, subject to velopment stan' for that zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the property owner has a no r: rmit ``" sita structure whin the front
yard setback, eight-feet from the front yard prop nd 60 percent within the front
yard setback for the zoning district,
WHEREAS, the property owns" s for a ce application to modify the
front yard setback on the properties fro enty eigh ; and
WHEREAS, sai s havied wite requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Proce or Imp entatio the California Environmental Quality Act,"
Resolution No. 2w 5, the Dir r of Cony tx nity Development has determined that the
project will not ha ' :� - ,negati ct on tFt , nvironment and qualifies as a Class 3
Categorical Exemptio � ""t Q , and
aid c hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
argu s, if any, all i sted persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Corgi ion did makeollow findings denying the variance request:
J<
Fi s of Denial �
1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title.
The variance request has failed to demonstrate that the enforcement of City
regulations related to the development standards of the Residential Single-
Family zoning district creates an unnecessary hardship to the property owner.
The request to reduce the front yard setback for two standards South Palm
Desert lots does not alleviate the property owner of any physical hardship
inconsistent with other properties in the surrounding area. Nothing at these
properties makes it impractical for the property owner to comply with the
development standards of the zoning district.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2685
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The properties, when taken together, are approximately 21,600 square feet in
area; about twice the size of other lots in the same area. There are no
exceptional circumstances or conditions on the properties that prohibit the
property owner to comply with the development standards for the zoning district.
All properties within the surrounding area are half th e of these properties,
and those property owners generally comply e same development
standards. To grant a variance request for the erties would be to grant
special privileges to a single property owner t oyed by other property
owners in the same area. All other prope diners wish to construct an
accessory building on their property a ,subject to t ame development
standards as this property owner. `
Z 111
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privile es enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same vicinity and zone.
The literal interpretation a ement o evelopment standards will not
deprive the property own n njoye other owners in the same
vicinity and zone. The apply t has 'oin' 1, is in South Palm Desert;
when combine twice th 'ze nding properties. There is
ample roorVowner
erties t , moda casita structure that complies
with the dment dards he zoning district. Approval of a variance for
this pro in)'9 provide with special privileges not enjoyed by
surroun wners ers in 'lar zoning districts. Approval of such a
request will e ines the City's Zoning Ordinance.
the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
s 'safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
f ,
granting of riance to reduce the front yard setback of an existing casita
s re is not imental to the public health, safety, or materially injurious to
sun g p ' sties. However, the precedent to approve a setback reduction
of this uld be detrimental to the public welfare, as the structure was
construc 'thout permits, and does not meet setbacks for this zoning district.
As such, the placement of the structure is out of character for this neighborhood
and could impact property owner expectations by allowing structures to be
placed closer to the street.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2685
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance 16-350.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on this 20th -,.of December 2016, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
h; 5
NOES:
a;4z^�yk
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
NWOOD, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST: n
RYA. EC RY
P� ESERT P ` . IN MISSION
k`s
P
.3
3
I I y 0 1 M 0 1
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 76o 346—o6ii
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. VAR 16-305
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST BY JOHN AND DEBRA TRUDEAU TO REDUCE THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY-FEET TO EIGHT-FEET TO ACCOMMODATE AN
EXISTING CASITA STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 72-700 SOMERA ROAD
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that this project is Categorically
Exempt from CEQA review under Class 3 — 15303 "New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures" as the structure is an existing casita unit on a single-family residential lot and action
to reduce the setback standards on this lot will not create an environmental impact.
Project Location/Description:
Project Location: 72-700 Somera Road
Project Description: The applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the front yard setback
from 20' from property line to 8' from property line to accommodate an existing casita structure.
The structure was built illegally, without permits, and the property owner requires a variance to
the front yard setback to maintain the structure in its current location.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
denying the applicant's request for a variance.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on December
20, 2016, at 6:00 pm.
Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at
the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from December 10,
2016 to December 20, 2016.
Public Review: The Variance application and related documents are available for public review
daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. 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:
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary
December 10, 2016 Palm Desert Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert/ Department of Community Development
Variance Application
Applicants -John and Debra Trudeau, 72700 Somera Rd., Palm Desert, CA 92260 (the "Property")
Project Request:
The Applicants are requesting that the guest house (non-permitted"Casita"structure) located at the
Property be granted a variance to allow the structure to remain in its current location.
V. SUPPORTING DATA
1: (an)existing guest house structure to remain in its current location. In December of 2005,the
former property owners applied for a 5-foot variance to the set-back requirements for the non-
permitted"Casita"structure. This variance to the set-back dimensions was approved on December 19,
2005, at a time that the guest house,while unfinished,was already fully constructed in its current
location. A copy of the Application is attached hereto as Exhibit"A".
2. The Applicants purchased the foreclosed property from a lender. Close of escrow was during
the month of June 2010 with the understanding that if and when they wanted to finish the guest house,
they would merely have to provide two sets of plans and pay a modest fee (approximately$1,000)to
bring the non-permitted "Casita"structure into compliance, again, if and when they chose to do so.
There were neither stipulations at closing by the mortgage company nor the City of Palm Desert that the
guest house was required by the present owners to be finished.
On or about July 22, 2015,the Applicants received notice from the City of Palm Desert that the guest
house was not constructed within the originally approved set-back dimensions.
3. The exception is the existence and location of the guest house being located on the front yard of
the Property. This makes the guest house unique to all other properties in the local residential area of
the Property.
4. Since the guest house is unique to the vicinity and zone,there would be no deprivation.
5. By granting the variance,there absolutely would neither be detriment to the public health,
safety or welfare to properties or improvements in the vicinity nor be materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity. The location of the guest house is on private property behind a tree
wall and not visible from any public area.
6: If the present property owners were allowed to choose a purpose for the guest house, it would
be to house visiting relatives to the property.
7: 1800 square feet
8: 390 square feet
9: The guest house is vacant and un-used.
10. In every direction within 300 feet,the exiting use for all properties is single family dwellings,
except for 628-150-005 (St. Margaret's Episcopal Church).
11: Flat residential land approximately 530 feet above sea level. The guest house is not visible from
the front yard set-back road (Somera Rd.) being shielded from road view by fully grown and mature
fichus trees.
i W
W W E ul W ul
u � F
a �
a q H
� m
.7 N
F \
FC H
F
z
H �
zz 0> M
0 3 0
rx rIHH a' HHHH H P:,H N £o
x v v v x v v v v v x v O N k x v v v v v
� W in�n�n W ifl ui vi ul ul W ul x H F W�o ��o io io
O H m ro m H ro ro m ro m m H x z E m m m M M
F F ]o H
U >+ >+ >+ F o >0 �
w z z z worx z
m x xo > v x xw
z O w O.G N m O • 0 0 m 0
H ri.gym ro h30 hC o h uw
� ♦� � 3 0 w C C
11 m ul m r• N'ri
q v d N N N U 0 G
oro
rl F Q4 H m m la o G 0
� ElW � U H m ro 7 H r '.� v
CL r0 O >-
H H H H H
O
O
ElN F F N X H.H H FC Q H N N
F \A-H \ O \> MA
u
0 O .a o � o b >,
O p M m A H.G O X H'O H Q o 'O C N
O m U 0 \?a \ W H cn \U H O H
u N H 0 U]7 M y SJ G
U U u O x
a'H U rn O 0 U 0 \W Ox N
o Q Q'Hm gwo,rtnI Qo a � w � q � oo
W'O 7 W (7 W'O O m
cq w x m m F ?+ Id F m P,la C F H o f :I
W Dk E, O W C h
,a C 0) v b ] ro W O m 7 a m m
w z a v F a v A a C E v H a U p •• E N a u w b v
C £ £ o Hwy U) 'd v
[n ro N H N F O v 0-
1 O O U W O X'�
u u C H ro u b m C m w
o v v v o Q G H ro
w H w u r w w o u o o G u ro v o m
w w u c7 I 3� w a rn o
w a O x z < < m G ra -O
F [4' W C GL'a U O -,i O U H u1 m E N VI H
El a a v o O m o m- ro ro
U Ul N F 00 ro b'1A w ro E w H E
In
C ro v as v to
H o .cl O r0'O ro O
N U m v N z 0 C) 0 W W �n z ,
O CL P,>. O a F (q N O'O C w�'O
u U H UI N N 7 G H w E+ n N H C N 1� [', 75
O 0G H N A N\r0 F N W P4 q F O
W H N C 1l U N N w U l-i rl F F� O F E w U
z F a w > o w o C w u
ro v o o a u C w v a o ro m O G a o w x a u a o v o v
LLaw QO Wa F'H.� zz Eo G m Zz zu r w 'n aL 'r
N U N FC E,, U] H H w W F H
U C > ro Q a F a F H N O H F q W a El
� a) u �[n� k qx qk 'a F >1 QO[n 'ak
FC ro G FC a�n w w w z F �n w w
F0 C) z HF 3F aF > a Q aF
a av ro 000 o ff o o FGw o 0
a o E SAN N as H FF lF .7F cn Ga zoo, .]H
o vHR7 F Ha as o xra as
U z cn O 0 Lo�l H H 0 a' O O u)
o u a s„� aF Q £ £ Hrx wrx as aha rjra wrx
m W ;U O ro r U xt
H Q C, FC A
W w W
OH a,O G,
.1 m H
F F N 1�N In z a s Q N O H H O X N •• N
!Z z C Sa v m x F F W v v v v U a Y-i N v
i0 W H N 01 li N O U1 W W x H N N N •• ro'C) G M
H u] j rC G O N h U 'c7 O N'd O
o
O \ .0 ..
a O
H o Sa � � � C�o O r • CL'b H N v ••-H
N N ,S� U M [4'F W N v r0 N N rtf 14
H W � E. o w •• [Y, m E z Elw w
U a W 71 E,o0 W W W
q az a orn z
w w n w H n w H >
o Q F w a
i a W Ua I Mn
(0) 14 Q i F
Sk rk H FC i0 q N F� r.� 0 H
a[aU of q CQ Cora 2, z x
N i
� W
i H in in ul ul in rn ul in ul rn
C9 i F
m m
W N
F \
H
F
m a
z
F �
z �
w �
i W �o�n�n W t`t� W mro W m W NN NN W NNN W�N W mm W mmmm W rn r,
fx E M W d <r El W WHHHH El Wines El W H -, HH WNN
O F F F F F F F F F F
F
w z z z z z z z z z z
m x v x xH x x x x x x H xx
i z O S, O rn O A O O O O O 0
0, O U
� U UlC
u 7 v O 10 A rt w aJ U) a) X
>+
u Cl C 3 v v
F H O u) U) b X C O a) S, w U C ,d a) ,[
v O a) O
F W U a) C F a) O rn m p, I b G
11 �4 o a) O a) o
-H 1J C 3 C a) ,d a) ro u b E+.0 1J
v O N
C ro v
UI ., F,'1J UI 1.1
El ID
0 C E
/y C ro iJ 1J rl N LJ N 1J �C -H
FC O a7 C b�0
m z G rn F CL rn a) m C o N rts O m O in rn z v,.s', rn I O
H U �-, O N A H -, I >, H u)
E+N F F \ N \ E \w \ —,0 v,C ro \O 1 \ \ \w U 14 \.�
fx o .a �r t� O r ,d a) m JJ d� Cl " r M M H a) v r� >
O a) O O 2P�j N
ao m \-rIH \ \rn ro \rt \F >H u \C E \ a)X \to \ v al \N
W o W M a ('1 u q U) N
P:o CU' b1 -rl H U7 C 1J S: o > v v v U)-H E
m
>, 7 C h H w o ?, E 1, iJ a)
O Q q C 3 G CL G C aJ q H q H G ro G )+ N G O C Q q .k a) N G u
F rx w w o s, u w-- wow wH w.c � v.0 w v > w u ro w N w C ro >-u w
m w x H F w v F F U v F F 3 E 3 F v F F v E+ C E 7 F C
H Pa m m W > w H W H w 3 w N w aJ 3 H W C Q, W R, w O b)?a w O
x£ H ,n Q .].A aJ 0 11 ,a O 17 .7 3 C U u) ,-] a) o o ,-a o .7 .7 h E E+ .]
W z a \ H P,xJ > S, CL U CL iJ P, O 04 N CL-H C CL C a4 -rl 1J CL b)
ro P, x C r iJ v El C mUC F N P m u O O G £ O JuJ.� O£ O £ 1u O
u O U a U U£X
mW m b U S, rd C�u aJ H.�h 1, U)
C w W a C v E a Id v F a E\ u) N C v O O X
u w E ro A > u N C w H > C G P O 14 3 v
O a) H\H -., O rn u 0 O
ro v
N C O N
o F C �, o h H a
Q F �d :7 G E -., N F �� rd Z) 3 0 ro u W a) w
u > ro u > ro ro b w C > v u > b H O
W > v FmLs
P, o mro Q) N�o N iJ 1J N H
aH C- rt u v a)
U N Ip,aJ £ W U� rn b H
z O a)1J X ,C C O N v O rn ., N aJ N C GL
H h z E i C z 010 2 S, yJ z 0 z >.aJ 1 z C E z z'O z X a) E z (D ?
O ro 3 o O CL a) O b) O w O C R iJ, O ro a)1J O E H O a) >, O U.0'u O, O
H U H H m N H a) H H O O U) U H U U H 1, rd H C la H Id L N ro H m U
F v iJ F S, F U E+ a) E+F E v v H N N E, -H F E+ � F
u C 7 ro U C N U U X U H C p, U >,O C1, U w U U ,d 75 U >,E N ✓ u C ro
w.{' u) u W,C w W iJ'O W O W ?,.0 b'U w u w ul W C a) w I C W C O S,w w Id
p,O U) O N O a) CL rl v C14 p, P, a) O () C CL �, C C CU O P, CL A 10 E1, O ?, O N Q, >.C
u)ri .,H mh S, mU 1, mm ma3 5, �, mU a) ., mUcn W U mEl H
H H H 'JH. H H H H H H
U a E+ a F a F P, F CL F a, F CL E+E+ a F a F N E+
Q k D x W k U k Q k Q k Q k k W k W k Dx
H z 34 3F 3F 3F 3Fw41+ 3EE, 3EW-�F 3EW-� 3F, 3F
r7 O O o O O O O O O O O
[4 o H 1l E+ .7 F,F, 17F .7F �-] F
£ E+ 1 �l rl rl a .] �-]�-] rl.7 1l r] ,a u).� .7 17 .7 1-1 .] .7
O >+ N u o m O m FO u) O u) O m O m 0 o U) O u) O u) O U)
o u � � P: N � wa wrx wrx wrx wa wre wrxrx wrx wrz wa
H
H Q � li a FC G v, v, in u, rn in in in io �o
m U H a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
H d' m H In wF N H F � i � Q N N O O N H O H H
U 0, W C E•o W
w w >+ n w H m w >
O i HH
w � > wua 1 o� o
W f��-7 F u)
aaH
N q i-7 N N H
M i
w w El n u+ u n n n
c� H
a q H
cn m
El N
H
H
CQ
z �
z
w
i f4 rA H H r1 C4 H l4 H H H r1 a'rl rl H H H [4 H H C4 H H a',�
W u)W W W W ul W 0000 H H W d�
W o000 [.,o W W ooHHH wH,� G.
C4 W d' d'd' et' W d' W ul to to W llt to N N N W N N W N N W N
O F H F F H Hri F HH FH rf F -,
H
U)
x ro 3 7z'. x b ro x r1 x x sA x
z O a) N O 0.0 C Oro b 0 O O O
O S, rd w O rl rJ
3 w v CvC v m �i .i v
U] W u A 3 N E u 7 Pa, w H U)
n > N O,C H C .A O b'N C rt U)
El ID F m m ro w w x
U r-1 rd C SA ?i z
U) sA G R, 3 x C v v rd W
C u 0) U E a) +d E v a) of O
z v 7 >. C),C O O C u E ul w a) F w
Orl G u � >, o , El
H
F w u CL N +d E U Si U > H R, FC W H
U1 N E CL F ro C 'b C N N'b U W N
'0 3 H H a) io • H U)0 FC m io
io W W H'U v H H 7 N U H.0 C O 'U rn H H C H w
F N E� F \ rd N O \ \A v r, \U a) 0 C \" \\ O \ O \U
[4 0 7 M .X W m .G � CL?�C a1 o M M ., M {p u Q U N C
0 0 '`] O U1 N W O O a)
ao U) \ rd Oat \ \a) 00 \ �
W O w M JJ 'i d' lfl I'I�H In SA O 1A ri rd
C4 0 [4 tri w N rd-� a) O w o r�W F a N
C vw O a) Hw u vu 3'b UUcnw >
O C'. r, H a) ✓ u U f7 v a) v \>+ H H
L4H OA 41 ?, \rn a) .1 £ o,O w a� o W 7-.F, W W N
0 Q g ro m a Q o q H U '71 a k Q x Q m o o w Q Q o
H C4 W W O W rl W SA .0 w O F w a) W'b rd \ £O d� W W
w w x El >,��, F H a) C a� E, E C-,� C E, F o 0 M £ E,W U)H U) W r C W,x W R, 0.� w 0 C W•d W r-, of q
x H W 7 a A SA w a 0 3 a w N S
wz a \ H a v0 a a slU U W ,nw C P, i art-� Q •� � � a 04
cn FL EH O N O O N C d O u k .-, O b O a) C M w O LL
FC W H N a' U] U 0 7 N U bl U,x m u a)'b U , U N u rd H +d U CL
U m cn \ x P,rd C a) m •b > C am, +d m14 14 Q +d
C w W a) a) a) d C of 4 U cU of
u W C ro > u 3 0 0 w
W a 0 7 0 lA C`b U) w m H A ro a) rd
F f4 W 1A E r" O mri FC O F o,F N u 3 C m 1.1 �N
O v p,3 ro lA
u N ,i A H x ro 3 v v sA u ro v
w z kk O 0 C ? tr ro O u > C
P, z SA 1� a) -rl O ro JJ a) O SA SA r'I E H 1J tr1
cn x o Ul 3 010 +d (d H \ r1fA p o
z O 3 C a) cn C) v 3 cn A�x w C H u m rL o
a,E z v m v z +\ z w io z u
O U) (d a) O w O N m a) C O N.O A U 0 U m 0 a) m Q N 0 �
H-1 1� 1 1� H-1 H 3 a) U-I ' ,� O G H M H rr�' .7 N H SA
E+ F SA 1A rd E+ O 0.l rd u H C H E, I� 0.'q� F W
U u C.-A C U u U u rJ O ri u C v Ai Uri O FC U
W ri cn H -u w R W U) Y, lA W W SA 1A FC W N
a U- ro a a r24vo � av
u W 44 3 rd Ul W cn W C a) () cn H U A, > O U) U C cn a W p;,x W U)a
z z z z z z wvz ro� z
H H H H H H [-�W W H H
U a El a E+ a E. a E. p a HP,E, w N o Q£w a E+
7-C� wx ax q>c xx x ax Dx aF >' Q0U) wx
w w w w w w w F U)w w
H z 3 F S H 8 H F F S F 3 F £ >.a Q 3 E,1-1 O O O O O O O O C W o O
a o H a H a F a F a H F l F l p F C a Zoe a H
x H as as as aU) a as as U)S 0 xra as
a\ 0 >i N u O V) o U) 0 U) 0 0' U) 0 U) 0 U) .D O a' O N O Ul
o u c4 N rL Wc4 w[4 w [4 k, a [4 wC4 wa Uha 1, W [4
� H m
u w H H H o, •• ,�
U) v
m H
F F Q N O O H rl N N O OJ O
u sA v \
W H x N cn Ln m ro N ro C H
H u1 i i r.0 U 'U O SA'd O r�
D� CL ro� v a�i ••�
HUP�, WA Ho £W C4 U)£ z El w w
q az a on
o F w q Q a
a U >+ W U o O
WOF Ul 1Aq gmra Ul
a a H FC l a N N H
aa U Ua � oa�ora x
W
� o
H n
w w
F
F o
� m
.7 N
F \
Q 1 H W
� a H
z
a
F
F
w
F
a
x
w
w
a
W 0
� F
� F
U >+
w z
a z
x x
z o
H h
U] W
W
i H H
� � F
F W i U
F
z � q
w w
a o F ,Fj
O o W
W
rk o a
�W i
a H
F 04 W Q
ww x a
x H u j q
DI
a El W
m
x
Ucq u1 x uF] cn
w a
F x w
F
q F
u
w z
a z
x
z o
H rj z
0
H
H
u
w
a
z
H
W
u a
H z a
o H a
O > N U O
O U
H m
w a
< w [�
o z u w H
w I H x H
H n u
v w �
v'
\o E O y
N N a i U F
w < o w a
u a w a F o w
q az a om
w w u w n w
w a
o
WOF cn � q gmra N H
aNr� H
aau a � w�ora x
Y
0
0 t0
Z r
M N m m m O
O
O a
m Q� O m
r ` N a
C m
U io U a N ■a■ 00
z
N M p C>
M
O ti O) ti '
N N p CN
O
N
CNO
LO
O O 0
CD
co toc
aO. a O fit .. Nk 4a
�y
O p
p
lA
N
• p y h i 4
i
G si
z I
t1
4L,
00 ap N �*
000 p O 4 a
N
G)(O .—
N Ni
a= 00
cCL
�.� z0o
t
rp
6
o
tI!
¢ = Z Z 0O kkk
I.
tl. < CZR 4 G <D f (((? 3
f
k[
P i g
- r
x
a
Vtii R[ip rr 56 g'
W �
4 ;
�\ ✓� a 3 F
oft
OL
polo
k
Q
a
i
Y
E
i
Om.
AV✓3 J1�ONSIi 11
.. wadi oNNvHe
fit lots 2
JE
Pv
� �g� � IV
I
'� ��
.6 � f � _ if
- - .
1 19 Its
.
;
sp
€ gym 1� 1�fill � s
lit E f .
lit j
ss ass _ ` ` f'. 8g sEg <ig$
pull
A i A
fill 110 1 11PUR .m H $ Ion 11 "
's if.
1
, lit
5
. ; . 1 mq
is
�
6py
11
-Sit H1 Ind,
ifl, it
a C4 et c 0 rid. 7S Z7S cd Z' €TiEta
HUH s� $
gt
fill
�4 _ £
c pp octit
Mt
1-ii lilt
p PE7o �ic'cp - n� .,� � �ro �p°o
; gyp mi ys ! Ts
� a :
in. � g �� � M's±ISS mot _ $x$ rcm
S o Min
zva°o s�io8�<� r�,OL
ed r-
pp �
5 C
g ® 8s ry C p q .s rpo,03vj V is d �¢ n °j iE T,,fi' f
J.
A Ell
"¢p + c d9 g y iO �' g lr
,+ �N c �i N�' Ft a3 ®SiSya irC � E�� os �'�' ems., :£r'`
�J sc fit
COg�Ye rq pp �SWIo�-�Sw D�6� �^ro�_sca S5
HIM!
-
>>
'Will Ili
�p � IMAP,
r , � Bcic�0 au-ate vq`s € fi `oy�Y � -. w $ dj.' �, rimm�Ac -.-0i u&'. v asp �o$bHUM,.! li $ it
`g9 �-6 .o.c 6 SYr e4
s
�I
w
C OZ£16 vz),smyo oNvsnOH1 i a •z '
3AY ISOrW" £8Z
OI>IVt O)INV88 m i
a
J
I
fi
gy$
1
�I
7
I
I
r
1 F
fi N
4
i
F�
Ell
. �
A
it
t g
,
p � r
fill 109-f ofsstill
* ` -
SUM AI
� � �tfill i
f5 r .'
� --tun- ;I
[Wit xr �
A (J
r.-
a
t r
kt�,L' i
-� , :•��
N p
p Et
W �
io
4
�� M
ID
�Q
Jr
k
f 6
'1! k�
.�a
di
AE—
L
¢� r
4 �G
�i+
a FF
be t
� w �' '� •i _ � f Y� � fp
� v q
_ r� v c �' •y n3yy
q
qw
9
_ q
�-f ryCCC y'
Ao
tilYlr � aV 8 ng
8 AC €G
S
s 3 e%+ tal
® a
``
-34tA
AIM Jv
R
w
e
b m
z
c� pf lb
3w IsDre oa COt
f
:r
I �
� f
F
Hit: 77
j
ZUP
® ' �
01
IV
Ul
N t $ x t
Ll
z
o d00 -tom
e ( �
IL
W i
x 5
sa
4
_
S< U.L�
�@ 0
K
0
T
LLLU
-�
_ Z
f
y �
k
k
P
I
G
x
z
® ! r
6
�I
i
II
pL
4
>oil
F
zo
uj
lu
{
I
O4
L
El
'L
t
6
c
oz&9 6 J 19wo owGrowl o9zzfi 1/J'JWSO0!M Cl- I
ar114 rACXWV4 1.uz avcrg cl�i
� i 6Y:99a'�9 3
CL
z
I L--. t
:p3!c1
c� �' _ -- —
eL
� 3
� I �
0
c$
0
O
[71-1
H
-AeYeY ` R6
F a ` r
FF$
G
S
4z
y
j
IU
LALI
F�>
2 El
ui
4
ZCL
-
i — —
0 N
ILI
9L
t
� .
uj
9 .
b
it 3C —
X D 9 ----
1 s
t
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-310
FOR A NEW 5,100-SQUARE-FOOT LOUNGE/BAR LOCATED AT 73-
750 EL PASEO, AND APPROVAL OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: Barbeau, LLC
Harry Knapp
73-750 El Paseo, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: CUP 16-310
DATE: December 20, 2016
CONTENTS: Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2686
Legal Notice
Exhibits
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2686,
approving the project request, and approval of a Notice of Exemption.
Executive Summary
Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16-310 will allow the applicant to operate a new
5,100-square-foot upscale lounge/bar, within the General Commercial (C-1) zone and the El
Paseo Overlay and Scenic Preservation Overlay districts. The business will operate seven
(7) days a week from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. when most of the adjacent businesses are
closed. The project will be developed in two phases.
• Phase One — A private membership only area within 1,700 square feet consisting of
a lounge, classic bar, and entertainment room.
• Phase Two — A private cigar lounge and rooftop lounge for the members, and a
public lounge/bar area called the Living Room.
Staff Report
CUP 16-310 Barbeau
Page 2 of 6
December 20, 2016
The proposed use requires approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission to ensure land
use compatibility and parking demand. Staff believes that parking, noise, and land use
compatibility will not be a concern.
Background
A. Property Description:
The property is located along the north side of El Paseo, east of Larkspur Lane, and
west of San Luis Rey Avenue. The existing 5,100-square-foot building is divided into
three (3) commercial tenant spaces. The current tenants are Robann's Jewelry and
Earth & Spirits clothing store. As part of Phase One the applicant is proposing to lease
Suite 101, which was formerly an art gallery, to operate the private membership only
lounge/bar. Parking for the site consists of shared public parking spaces in the rear of
the building within Presidents Plaza east and shared street parking along El Paseo.
r 51
/y /
f , e
1/ \ Jill
f
IF xr s
ARM-
a
�� �: I�WIYYVYIIIYIIIIiiIVI�YrY�( � `„`>
P
a
v� �F
/PM
/
i4aupm��lll tiS' q
k 1 ` SNP" '
AM
'211 AM
W'
GAPlanningXemn Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 16-310 Barbeau Bar\PC Staff Report Barbeau.doc
Staff Report
CUP 16-310 Barbeau
Page 3 of 6
December 20, 2016
B. Zoning and General Plan Designation:
Zone: C-1 , S.P. — General Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay District and El
Paseo Overlay District
General Plan:Downtown
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: C-1, S.P. — General Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay District and El
Paseo Overlay District/ Commercial Uses and Gas Station
South: C-1 — General Commercial / Office and Commercial Uses
East: C-1, S.P. — General Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay District and El
Paseo Overlay District/ Commercial Uses
West: C-1, S.P. — General Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay District and El
Paseo Overlay District / Commercial Uses
Project Description
The proposed upscale lounge/bar is not a typical bar or night club, but rather an elegant
place with a dress code. The applicant is proposing the business plan/operation in two
phases. Currently, the applicant has a signed lease for Suite 101 with a leasing option to
absorb the other two suites when those tenants' leases expire in two to three years. The
proposed CUP would apply to the entire 5,100-square-foot building.
Phase One (Suite 101):
Phase One includes 1 ,700 square feet of the building and will only be open to individuals
who purchase a private $5,000.00 annual membership. All members will be able to bring up
to three (3) guests. The private area features three distinct spaces that can accommodate
approximately 100 people admitted on a reservation basis.
• The Lounge - Located at the front entrance and will feature booths, chairs, and
coffee tables.
• The Hemingway Bar — Located in the middle of the space and will feature a half
circle bar with bar stools for seating.
• The Diva Lounge — Located in the rear of the space and will feature a small stage
that will accommodate three piece bands and an eclectic mix of music.
Phase Two (Suites 102 and 103):
This phase is an extensive expansion featuring a private membership only cigar lounge, a
private rooftop lounge, and a public lounge/bar called the Living Room. At this time, the
applicant has not provided a floor plan for this phase since he does not currently occupy the
space.
GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP'S\CUP 16-310 Barbeau Bar\PC Staff Report Barbeau.doc
Staff Report
CUP 16-310 Barbeau
Page 4 of 6
December 20, 2016
The hours of operation for both phases would occur seven (7) days a week from 6:00 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m.
The proposed use will not feature a kitchen, but the applicant will provide snacks in the form
of nuts, olives, pretzels, etc. The applicant will work with adjacent restaurants so members
and guests will be able to order and bring in outside food.
The business will have approximately 11 employees consisting of a manager, host,
bartenders, cocktail waitresses, busboys, and security. There would be two (2) security
guards - one at each entrance. Valet parking will also be provided along El Paseo.
The applicant is proposing minor exterior improvements to the existing building as part of
Phase One, which includes a new entrance into Suite 101 with a new high-end entry door
with lighting. As part of Phase Two the applicant will update the entire building, which
requires approval from the Architectural Review Commission.
Analysis
The Palm Desert Municipal Code (P.D.M.C.) lists permitted, conditionally permitted, and
prohibited land uses for each zoning district established in the City. The C-1 zone and the El
Paseo Overlay District allows lounges/bars, subject to the review of a CUP, to ensure there
is adequate parking and land use compatibility with surrounding properties. The surrounding
properties consist of a variety of commercial uses from restaurants/bars, retail uses, and art
galleries.
Public Hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel
and placed in The Desert Sun. At the time of writing this report staff has not received any
correspondence in favor or in opposition to the project.
The future success of El Paseo will be largely dependent on maintaining the upscale vibrant
streetscape. Staff believes that an upscale lounge/bar can operate in a respectful manner
consistent with the vision for El Paseo. Conditions such as the following will ensure that
staff has ample tools to address any potential nuisance issues:
• Submittal of an Entertainment Site Plan for review by the Community
Development/Planning Department for any indoor music or any other form of
entertainment.
• Applicant must clean all public areas, including street, sidewalks, landscape areas,
parking within 100 feet of the business entrances, and El Paseo median including,
but not limited to, trash, broken bottles, and other debris within thirty (30) minutes of
the close of business.
• The business owner must provide at least two (2) security guards who have no other
affiliation with the bar during operating hours to enforce such things as: noise, trash,
altercations, occupancy, and excessive drinking.
• The business must be current and approved by the Department of Alcohol Beverage
Control (ABC) to serve alcohol at all times.
GAPlanningXe\in Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 16-310 Barbeau Bar\PC Staff Report Barbeau.doc
Staff Report
CUP 16-310 Barbeau
Page 5 of 6
December 20, 2016
• If noise becomes disturbing, excessive or offensive to the residents in the area and
is reported by any five (5) reasonable persons of normal sensitivity within a year,
staff will look at modifying the hours of operation.
Also, any CUP issued may be modified, discontinued, suspended, or revoked by the
Planning Commission upon receiving satisfactory evidence that the permittee, its agents,
employees, 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 CUP; or 3) has allowed the existence of or created a public
nuisance in violation of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
A. Land Use Compatibility:
The El Paseo Overlay District is designed as a pedestrian specialty retail/personal
services district that attracts and sustains pedestrian interest. The intent is to allow
businesses that create pedestrian foot-traffic such as restaurants with outdoor dining
and retail uses that operate during the day and evening hours and are open to the
public. Staff initially had concerns with the applicant's business model operating as a
private use for members only and operating between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m., leaving the building non-operable during the day. However, after meeting with the
applicant staff is comfortable with the business model since the concept is geared
towards attracting a high-end customer, who is the desired shopper for El Paseo. Also,
a portion of Phase Two will offer a public lounge/bar area. The applicant will also work
with existing hotels and the new Hotel Paseo on Larkspur by providing guest passes.
The City's Strategic Plan also states the following for El Paseo.
• Land Use - Priority 4: "Create a mixed-use city core integrating shopping, dining,
lodging, and housing."
• Tourism and Marketing — Priority 1: "Improve access to Palm Desert and its
attractions to enhance the ease of lifestyle."
• Transportation — Priority 1: "Create walkable neighborhoods and areas within Palm
Desert that would include residential, retail, services and employment centers, and
parks, recreation and open space to reduce the use of low occupancy vehicles.
CUPs are discretionary and viewed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the site is
surrounded by existing retail commercial uses, offices, and restaurants. There are no
other fully operating lounge/bars in the immediate vicinity, but all other surrounding
businesses on the block primarily close their doors between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
with a couple of restaurants staying open until 11 :00 p.m. The business operation of
seven (7) days a week between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. should be
compatible and not create negative impact such as noise to the adjacent businesses.
The proposed use is in keeping with the zone and overlay districts, adjacent uses, and
meets the City's Strategic Plan by providing an upscale intimate sense of place for the
high-end customer/shopper.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP'S\CUP 16-310 Barbeau Bar\PC Staff Report Barbeau.doc
Staff Report
CUP 16-310 Barbeau
Page 6 of 6
December 20, 2016
Furthermore, the project does not physically divide an existing community, and does not
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General
Plan,
B. Parking:
Staff is unaware of any ongoing parking issues within the area. Section 25.46.040
Parking Requirements states restaurants/bars require eight (8) parking spaces per
1,000 square feet. The 5,100-square-foot lounge/bar will require forty-one (41) parking
spaces. Directly behind the building is a shared parking lot within Presidents Plaza east
where there is an adequate amount of parking, especially in the late evening hours.
Additionally, the business operates on a reservation basis and provides for valet
parking, and public street parking along El Paseo.
Based on the amount of parking and the surrounding businesses' hours of operation,
and the businesses' hours starting at 6:00 p.m., staff believes that there is adequate
parking available and the use will not create a public nuisance in regards to parking.
C. Findings of Approval:
Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's
Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the Planning
Commission Resolution attached to this staff report.
Environmental Review
This project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Staff has found this project to be categorically exempt, under Class 32: In-fill
Development Projects, of the CEQA. Because of the categorical exemption, no further
environmental review is necessary.
Submitted By:
)L
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
Department Head:
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
GAPIanning\Kemn Swartz\Word\CUFs\CUP 16-310 Barbeau Bar\PC Staff Report Barbeau.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2686
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A
NEW 5,100-SQUARE-FOOT LOUNGE/BAR LOCATED AT 73-750 EL
PASEO
CASE NO: CUP 16-310
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 20th day of December 2016, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by Barbeau, LLC for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality,Act (CEQA), the City
must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is
subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine
whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further
environmental review is necessary. The application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in the Director of Community Development has
determined that the proposed project is an Article 19 Class 32: In-fill Development Projects
Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project conforms to the General Commercial zone, the
Scenic Preservation Overlay, and the El Paseo Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the uses along El Paseo since
the concept is geared towards attracting a high-end customer, who is the desired shopper
for El Paseo; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project conforms to the "City Center/Downtown"
designation within the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report reasons to
approve the said request:
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
The site is located within the General Commercial (C-1) zone, the Scenic
Preservation Overlay District (S.P), and the El Paseo Overlay District (E.P.). The
zoning districts are designed as a pedestrian specialty retail/personal services that
attracts and sustains pedestrian interest. The intent is to allow businesses that
create pedestrian foot-traffic such as restaurants with outdoor dining and retail uses
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2686
that operate during the day and evening hours. The proposal for the upscale
lounge/bar use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to ensure land use
compatibility and parking demands. CUPs are discretionary and viewed on a case-
by-case basis. The surrounding properties consist of a variety of commercial uses
from restaurants, offices, and retail uses. The use of a lounge/bar would be
consistent with the land use pattern for this area. The proposed use is in keeping
with the zoning district, adjacent uses, and meets the City's Strategic Plan by adding
a use that will bring high-end customers to the "city center." The continuing success
of El Paseo will largely depend on creating a more inviting and vibrant streetscape.
The upscale lounge/bar can operate in a respectful manner consistent with the vision
and conditions have been placed on the project to ensure that the city has ample
tools to address any potential nuisance issues.
It can be determined that the approval of this CUP is consistent with the existing
uses of the site, is consistent with the permitted and conditionally permitted uses
listed for the zoning district, and conforms to all development standards contained in
the zoning ordinance.
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.
The proposed conditional use is adjacent to properties with similar zoning
designations and commercial uses. The surrounding area, which was improved with
existing buildings and parking lots, has been operating for years with various
commercial retail uses. The proposed upscale lounge/bar is a consistent use. There
are no other lounges/bars in the immediate vicinity, but all other surrounding
businesses primarily close their doors between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. with a
couple of restaurants staying open until 91:00 p.m. The business operation of seven
(7) days a week between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. should be compatible
and not create a negative impact such as noise to the adjacent businesses.
Additionally, based on the amount of parking and the adjacent businesses hours of
operation, staff believes that there is adequate parking available, and the use will not
create a public nuisance in regards to parking.
Building improvements and site operations will comply with all building, life safety
and environmental standards during construction and continued operations,
including: dust mitigation, storm water discharge, health licensing, and fire
prevention strategies. All building and site improvements, including enlargements to
restroom facilities, will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Therefore, the conditional use, building and site improvements will not be detrimental
to public health, safety, or welfare, and will enhance surrounding properties rather
than detract from them.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments.
The proposed CUP and minor building improvements comply with all applicable
development standards for building setbacks and height restrictions, parking
PC Reso 2686.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2686
requirements, and operational standards contained in the zoning code. The
proposed use does not require approval of any variances or adjustment.
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the City's general plan.
The City's General Plan designates this property as "City Center/Downtown" which
allows a variety of civic, cultural, entertainment, retail, restaurants, and other
commercial services organized along walkable streetscapes. Staff believes that the
business model for the upscale lounge/bar fits this vision since it is geared towards
attracting the high-end customer which is the desired shopper for El Paseo.
Also, the General Plan includes a Commercial Core Area Specific Plan that includes
commercial properties along El Paseo and other parts of the City. The overarching
goal of the Specific Plan is to "maximize project area's potential for high quality
economic development compatible with Palm Desert's overall community goals and
self image." The proposed use and minor site improvements comply with the
Commercial Core Specific Plan as they make a substantial investment into the
building along El Paseo.
The City's Strategic Plan also states priorities for El Paseo identified in the City's
Strategic Plan, including the following..
Land Use - Priority 4: "Create a mixed-use city core integrating shopping, dining,
lodging, and housing."
Tourism and Marketing — Priority 1: "Improve access to Palm Desert and its
attractions to enhance the ease of lifestyle."
Transportation — Priority 1: "Create walkable neighborhoods and areas within Palm
Desert that would include residential, retail, services and employment centers, and
parks, recreation and open space to reduce the use of low occupancy vehicles."
The proposed use is in keeping with the General Plan and the vision within the
General Plan, and meets the City's Strategic Plan and emphasizes on creating a
"city center/downtown,"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for
approval of the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve CUP 16-310, subject to
conditions.
PC Reso 2686.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2686
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 201h day of December 2016, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PC Reso 2686.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2686
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO: CUP 16-310
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Building & Safety Department
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Coachella Valley Water District
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
4. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city against any third party legal
challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the City at applicant's expense.
5. Applicant shall clean all public areas,, including street, sidewalks, landscape areas,
parking within 100 feet of the business entrances, and the El Paseo median including,
but not limited to, trash, broken bottles, and other debris within 30 minutes of the close
of business.
6. The business owner must provide at least two (2) certified license security guards who
have no other affiliation with the bar from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. to enforce such things
as: noise, trash, altercations, occupancy, and excessive drinking.
7. The cocktail lounge bar must be current and approved by the Department of Alcohol
Beverage Control (ABC) to serve alcohol at all times.
8. If noise becomes disturbing, excessive or offensive to the residents in the area and is
reported by any five (5) unrelated persons of normal sensitivity within a year, staff will
look at modifying these conditions.
PC Reso 2686.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2686
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY:
9. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes:
A. 2013 California Building Code and its appendices and standards.
B. 2013 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
C. 2013 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
D. 2013 California Electrical Code.
E. 2013 California Energy Code.
F. 2013 California Green Building Standards Code.
G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations.
H. 2013 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
10.All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 &
11 B-206).
11. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B-
705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA
requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall
supersede the state requirement.
12. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is
required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Department of Building and
Safety.
13.All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5.
14.All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers'
Compensation Insurance coverage prior to, the issuance of a building permit per
California Labor Code, Section 3700.
15.Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1265 (Palm Desert
Municipal Code 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1265 regarding street address
location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from
street,, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible
obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may
render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review
process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1265 or Municipal Code Section 15.28
from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff.
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE:
16. Fire Department Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed
when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will
be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code
(CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
PC Reso 2686.doc
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. CUP 16-310
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A NEW 5,100
SQUARE-FOOT PRIVATE CLUB/UPSCALE LOUNGE BAR. THE PROJECT WILL BE
DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASES WITH PHASE ONE CONSISTING OF A PRIVATE CLUB
WITHIN 1,700 SQUARE FEET AND PHASE TWO CONSISTING OF A PRIVATE CIGAR
LOUNGE AND A PUBLIC LOUNGE BAR WITHIN THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING,
AND A ROOFTOP LOUNGE/GARDEN LOCATED AT 73-750 EL PASEO.
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), completed an Initial Study to review the potential
environmental impacts of the project and have determined that the proposed request will not
have a negative impact on the environment.
Project Location: 73-750 El Paseo, Suite 101
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution
supporting the project request.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on December
20, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at
the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from December 9 to
December 20, 2016.
Public Review: The project plans are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please
submit written comments to the Planning Department. 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:
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary
December 9, 2016 Palm Desert Planning Commission
Wd 90:OS:f 9LOZ/9/ZL
UN
W W com w gLu
°'a °��=
A N W
aw
5 a f� 'oil I m H. I11�� � bq� w� ff �3 aYar � .c a o m y cc � d E H"ju §
_ $ 1f 951� dojg� "sue 'O 1111� 0 Z W m W W0 � c a �' W
61
U p 3 1 LL_ F G 9 E ° �t Q O _ gig m U
$ "� ~ Z ,0 J
Z °.00 p
133tlUS dO 3NI1 HUN3O
4
g
YI v�
k 03S `dd 13
°
w w w w
i
O8 3NII Al2f MOMd
Z �\ C4 N \ \ w 5 O
mm
C z
W \Z� \ y w H
\� \ y W
\m� �ez � O
S O Fi ow
Fw U.
9 \\\ \"--Z\\ °4Z1N UU
\\ \ \\\\\ R.
�Y
wo
KVU>pU
O Ua
npF�
O W p�OX
Oq
\\ � waU O N2
R\ \ cwiZ� a 'au u .
iA.A war nWm
ono rc c Jww o
v v
0.5z CV2m VOiQ W i �U_ ZZ WO W
\\\ t/lzpm AF�f WU O OJ OO O
Pa
O
L6 'hwO
omi� m �3 ym�
mad
. 'o000 _Zowoo
Op p10 w f9 zzzz 'o
\/ 2 > ___ �FJ �iO W JW?ON
I -- _--- I OUO� mZ n 22 2 L,UuFmN1Nm oo U
�°dm ,h� O W COqXXX a (J aO3
aaa� na N O »�IdWWW a OmZW
0
N
E
ULL
SWa m r 2
4 $ _9�W E K E mUF '� w
a
o$ g° ac�i�yo S ��
-( _ w - {{ za3u_ E 3 �� $y �=Z2ZWQrgp ¢iyH
V� IOa¢ K f=o<U s ==pa
j $ yyw ¢aa O mm - U
Ij
aWpZ' aWw3 wy �ww wxwpQ �QO,w
4 �p �o�i u�ai�� acwiigf�J
� mo"�^
;Nna � naac4Fw �S�i�arw �NU�arW
LU
Z ; - z
e I I
J3. -
Z
w �) U
I
a ! ;
b «
-
-iaL°n(3) ...
7 IYIA MWdl3) � '�
dA y
wow tl31 0) _M
a� a�
30O AV-699
wwry a�vas(� -.
r
rvd EGOS E 9LWJ92t
Ucli
Cn j (n� fib m O � 4�cS �i Nyv
may// N °u N o y1 �yt
Z
as W N
Z
a in W
W N g w � ' w �Q Q
^^ N WHT.
W
it
a o�`00 �w O
QW JE��'3
CDZ m a Q LL � � 49 Q N W
U z o� 3 ; x
III
I-- M d Z g �c
Ciem Z z
a
CL Q z gip o o g o
Q fly f$ m U 0 W
Z
y g
------------- a
111� it
I O
I o
z ,
W- „ Z
' I
LU
o� U
LL
o�
��
J1 �
a <? m 9
C9p z�
Z Hid
Uo •,1 Now
z�
I y
�J I�
w
C
J
I
t I
0�
Os� W
Dou w -
W
- 04
o � -
I I �IIy I I I 7
.. .EJ4 i4'AZ Ili
I I I I I I