HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-21 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT
REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019 — 6:00 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER 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 CITY 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., 73-510 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 21, 2019
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 2019.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Action:.
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION approval of a one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map 36342 for the subdivision of 22+ acres into 196 units
consisting of 84 cluster units, 64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a
private recreation facility development located on the northwest corner of
University Park Drive and College Drive.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract
Map 36342 until May 21 , 2020.
Action:
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
Vill. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 2019.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Action:
X. 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 to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to operate an indoor 4,800-square-foot kennel-free doggy daycare/overnight
boarding and grooming facility within a portion of an existing industrial building
located at 42-620 Caroline Court, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP
19-0005 (The Village Pup, La Quinta, California, Applicant).
2
AGENDA
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 21, 2019
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
2757 approving Case No. CUP 19-0005, subject to the conditions of
approval.
Action:
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
B. PARKS & RECREATION
XIII. COMMENTS
XIV. 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 161h day of May 2019.
Monica O'Reilly, Recording retary
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
' TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2019 — 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna
Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt
Absent:
Commissioner John Greenwood
Chair Ron Gregory
Staff Present:
Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell reported that the City Council
approved the tentative parcel map for Stone Eagle, with the addition of two conditions of
approval.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2019
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 2019.
Rec: Continue to the next regular meeting.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Pradetto, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a
3-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None;
ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Auto Desert
to expand its car dealership outdoors and display up to 10 automobiles within its
shared parking lot for sale purposes located at 74-990 Joni Drive, Unit Al, and
adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Case No. CUP 17-111 (Auto Desert, Palm Desert, California, Applicant).
Associate Planner Kevin Swartz reported that the applicant requested a continuance. He
mentioned at the first meeting the applicant had an individual speak on his behalf.
However, the individual that spoke on his behalf is currently out of the country and due
back at the end of the month. If the Planning Commission continued this item, the
individual would be available for the first meeting in April. He said staff is ready to present
the staff report if the Commission does not want to continue this item.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that the Planning Commission has heard this case and
continued this item multiple times, and convened this meeting just for this matter. She
pointed out that there are one to two issues to address. She believed the applicant could
communicate adequately so that the Commission could hear this item tonight.
Commissioner Pradetto concurred with Commissioner DeLuna.
Mr. Swartz proceeded to present the staff report (staff report is available at
www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He noted that the applicant removed many of the vehicles.
However, the applicant still has two rows of cars parked at the back of the building. He
said the distance between both buildings is 40 feet, and the Fire Department does need
20 feet of clearance. Additionally, the Fire Department is not acceptable to have vehicles
parked directly in front of the bays for safety reasons. Staff recommended allowing 10
2
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2019
cars displayed outdoors in designated areas, and the applicant could not park vehicles in
front of the bays. Mr. Swartz said the applicant did not agree with the recommendation
and offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the Fire Department agreed to the 10 designated
parking spaces.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct, noting that the Fire Department preferred the back area
to be completely clear of vehicles.
Mr. Stendell asked Mr. Swartz if the Fire Department gave staff an alternative if the
applicant chose to close the doors (bays).
Mr. Swartz replied no. He explained if cars are parked in front of the bays then the building
must have fire sprinklers. Additionally, vehicles need to have fuel and tire pressure at a
certain level. Therefore, the Fire Department expressed concern getting inside of the
building if there is a fire.
Vice-Chair Holt inquired if the applicant leases or owns the building.
Mr. Swartz replied that the applicant leases the building. He believed the lease expires in
six to seven months.
Vice-Chair Holt asked if the applicant is currently nonconforming to code.
Mr. Swartz indicated that Palm Desert inherited some of the uses in the area when it was
Riverside County. In the past, the City seemed to disregard auto uses and allowed them
indoors in the Service Industrial zone. However, over the years, auto dealers have abused
the system and dealers started to store vehicles outside. A couple of years ago, the City
Council approved a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow auto uses and the ability to
store vehicles outdoors, subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Vice-Chair Holt asked if staff is now working through those cases.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Since the applicant wants to store vehicles outside, the
City has to designate those certain parking spaces.
Commissioner DeLuna recalled that at a previous meeting there was a stack of citations
and complaints. She asked if the applicant addressed them all and in conformance with
code.
Mr. Swartz replied yes.
Vice-Chair Holt asked if it is correct that everything is up to code and the only issue is the
number of vehicles allowed outdoors at this location.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct.
3
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2019
MR. SHLOMO TURJEMAN, Applicant, Joni Drive, Palm Desert, said since the February
meeting, he removed 20 cars that were displayed outdoors. He said it was difficult
because he had to rent a storage facility to store the cars. He noted that cars parked on
the street did not belong to him. He also removed a row of cars from the back of the
building. He mentioned that he and his neighbor called the police concerning illegally
parked cars and they had the cars towed. He expressed he did his best at removing cars,
but needs two rows behind the building to display cars to have a successful business.
Commissioner Pradetto recalled the applicant conducts business based on appointments.
MR. TURJEMAN replied yes. He restated that he did his best to clean up the area.
Commissioner Pradetto asked how many cars are inside the building.
MR. TURJEMAN responded there are 35 to 36 cars inside the building.
Commissioner Pradetto clarified that the applicant would have more than 40 spaces with
10 spaces outdoors. He assumed customers go to the applicant's website then make an
appointment to see the car(s). He also assumed one customer would not want to see 45
cars at one time.
MR. TURJEMAN replied that is correct.
Commissioner Pradetto asked the applicant if he agreed he outgrew the space.
MR. TURJEMAN replied no. He mentioned he leases the whole building and pays more
rent.
Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open. However, Mr. Stendell interjected and
reminded the Planning Commission that the public hearing was left open at the meeting
of February 5.
Vice-Chair Holt invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter.
With no testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Pradetto felt that the applicant outgrew the space and if he needs to display
more than 45 cars, he does not think this is the right area. Therefore, he moved to approve
staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2750, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and
Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory).
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
4
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2019
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Mr. Stendell reported that the Commission selected four exhibitions for the Palm Desert
Community Gallery.
B. PARKS & RECREATION
None
XIII. COMMENTS
None
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With the Planning Commission concurrence, Vice-Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at
6:19 p.m.
LINDSAY HOLT, VICE-CHAIR
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY
5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEETING DATE: May 21 , 2019
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Approval of a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 36342 for
the subdivision of 22+ acres into 196 units consisting of 84 cluster units,
64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a private recreation facility
development located on the northwest corner of University Park Drive and
College Drive.
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve the applicant's request for a one-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 36342 until May 21, 2020.
Property Description
On May 3, 2011, the Planning Commission approved Precise Plan 06-05 and TTM 36342 for
196 units consisting of 84 cluster units, 64 attached units, 48 single-family homes, and a private
recreation area. The site has been rough graded; sewer and water lines have been installed.
On August 7, 2013, the Planning Commission ratified an extension granted by AB 116 for
tentative tract and parcel maps approved after January 1, 2000, and unexpired as of July 11,
2013. AB 116 extended TT 36342 until May 3, 2017. Since 2017, the applicant has received two
additional one-year time extensions.
In 2014, the current applicant's company purchased the property and the entitlements. The
applicant plans to sell the property to a developer.
University Neighborhood Specific Plan
On January 7, 2017, the City Council approved the University Neighborhood Specific Plan
(UNSP), consisting of approximately 400 acres. The UNSP supersedes the former 2006
University Park Master Plan. The applicant's property and TTM 36342 falls within the
Neighborhood Medium (NM) Zone. The NM zone is to provide a lively neighborhood
environment, within the range of attached single-family housing and intermixed with single-
family detached housing. The NM zone also discourages large private yards since there are
parks throughout the UNSP. The NM zone also encourages non-gated private developments
and homes facing along streets.
May 21, 2019 — Planning Commission Staff Report
Case Nos. PP 16-396 and TPM 37320 Time Extension 3
Page 2 of 2
The applicant has not changed the original project density or product type, but has made minor
modifications to better comply with the UNSP. The minor modifications are allowed per the
Subdivision Map Act and do not require additional public hearings. The following modifications
have been made in an effort to gain compliance with the UNSP:
• Non-gated community.
• Re-oriented the single-family lots along University Park Drive to be front facing.
• Removal of the perimeter block wall along University Park Drive.
• Relocation of the park area to front on University Park Drive.
Time Extension
The applicant is seeking a buyer for the TTM, and this one-year extension will allow them to
continue to market the property. Generally, as conditioned, the map conforms to the goals and
policies of the General Plan. The applicant has also modified the existing map to comply with
the vision and goals of the UNSP. Staff is recommending a one-year time extension as allowed
by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.20.140 "Extensions of Time" and the Subdivision
Map Act. If approved, the map will remain in effect until May 21, 2020.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER
NIA N/A N/A
Ryan Stendell
Robert W. Hargreaves Director of Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian
City Attorney Community Director of Finance City Manager
Development
APPLICANT: Mike Byer, Vice President
WSI Mojave Investments, LLC
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant's Time Extension Request Letter
2. Tentative Tract Map 36342
G1P1anning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Precise Plans\PP 06-05,TT 36342 High\PC Staff Report Time Extension 3.docx
WSI MOJAVE INVESTMENTS
Mike Byer Kevin Swartz
WSI Mojave Investments, LLC Planner, City of Palm Desert
3161 Michelson Drive-Suite 425 73510 Fred Waring Dr,
Irvine, CA 92612 Palm Desert, CA 92260
Mr. Swartz, January 22nd 2019
Due to the prolonged delay in housing recovery in the Coachella Valley, more particularly in this
case the City of Palm Desert we are asking that the Planning Department provide its support for
a 1-year extension on Tract Map 36342 to the Planning Commission. This extension would
provide for a much-needed additional year to allow the area to build up some momentum as
Blackrock pushes forward with their adjacent development.
We have been great stewards of the property and work quickly with code enforcement on any
repairs/cleanup that is required on our site. We follow all rules regarding soil maintenance and
have worked with the city to amend our site to better fit the city vision and the specific plan
amendment that occurred last year.
In closing we hope we have staff and ultimately planning commissions support for an extension
that will be critical in bringing this development to fruition.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Mike Byer,
Senior Vice President
WSI Mojave Investments, LLC
Phone: 949.383.4137
E-mail: mbyer a richlandinest.corn
LEGEND SHEET 1 OF 3
—A—NAP auADARr ____
SEGOUFND VERTICAL
POINT O INTFRYLIIOW n GENERAL NOTES
EDOSEO-AGE n 1. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: R-YM�IO.OSRP
GWOE BREAK 2. VACANT.EXISTUIC LARD USE:
CER ERIOE RAOM - GSII' J. Ellliilxc SURRCUDUNG LANDU VUCARS
sTREEi MADE- a� R. EXISTING ZONING:9. PROPOSED LAND USE:SINGLE FANILY MACNEO.SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED,
PROPOSED LOT RARER N CODNERIIB6,OPEN SPACE
PROROSD IAOS RUBBER--- OU 47 B. PROJECT ACREAGE:OIOE:21.56 AC
PROPOSED FDOSE FLOOR ELEVATION FF.= 7. PROJECT mMSITY]S.2 OU/AC IR6SS
PROPoSEO STORN OUPN- ———- I.LED SOUNDLY:
_TmAL LOT rk..
vROPosm aWm LINE-- —� _ PM 31730 ` I I si�E°Wliui AT ACED:BA 4i Uzi
PROPOSED WATER LDS - ———————————— -- — — -- L 1 BTnN
PROPOSED WAulxwG WALL -- PM 31730 I PM 31730 _ �Y�T��� —i �srPi¢s�rmu Lars.ti7Be
t.-F
PROPOSED STORK DRAIN -- ---- Mg 211/63-75 I MR 211/63 75 �kOW PARKIND!cAA.AGE BX SPACES PRwmsD
EXISTING STORM GRAIN LOT 7 I LOT 3 :V ._ OEX PARKIXRA rl SP.JHA
EXISTING SEBEA L. -._ J^A• \``a.`_._.,` _ :'f� 1 . �(;IEEE Vjp 1h 9. iIRXIAs tlOW.MAP:IOGS SAx II—IREVNIVERSEDE COUNTIES.PACE B19.F-t
r� 3\�]Q'J ED.WILLETY PWVEYOO:
.1.EATEN LINE _. ..._ GUSER CYW
.:... ._ .. � } 1..... ._ `, i 9 SERER: cvND
-r-- I v 1 '3 GAS:SOOTNERN CALIFORNIACALIFORNIAk GAS CmPkJY
oPEn sPAa LOT -_ ® -. '�- — I �'�. ry�1 ELECTRIC:SOUTNFAN EOISd
TELEPNOE:TUNE
WAA
- SIDERA DWA x1AE'APo OF
CODO LOT LOE _.-_-® '.: I N � � 3€ �'a, � 1 C PLLY DESEgi
j I '• 11. SOWED.Dismicr: PkN sPRixcs uxlFiEn.
.} ( 12.FEES PROJECT 15 INIT SUBJECT TO LIGIEFACTEOU DOm1ER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
tI{
1 AND 15 NDT WITHIN A SPECIAL STUDIES J.uRICANY ROI EESTS TIE RIOT TO FILENRT10.E fEXk WPS UNDER
-I.W-1.1 OF EIE MAP ACT.
E ' Et _ .. ... ETENT Ott' ��' 0�b t ORIGINAL APN Is CORROLLED AND PREPARED BY RV.INc AT NO SCALE ACCWAm.
Rn I�.q BAST - 4 ry\1 A EXISTING TOPOGRIPNY Es BASED OW PRlOI DEVELOPIEML ROWTI 6RAD,
XO.
Roc 25JB' - _ /\'('Jp� 3 �� yp ts.FARES TENTATIVE ANJP GOES NOT COVER TIE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF 7HE LANDOBIER.
a
16.ALL a6E5 ALE 2:1 EXCEPT YIERE NOTED ON PLANS.
'A , A pR�4� � .. L_ 11.IFFW FLOOD NNE"C": AREAS OF YIMENk FLOODING c2 PER FIRM PANEL NO,0645-1625[.I
a
l
RIXL CUBE(TYPE ;.. .. z.; ROLLDCIR®ITYPI I T I - 1e.w IENCRsSTRUCXTURES ON°TTHERPPRR�RTY DCEPT AS AI ED OO5r.AIR. AREAS,
aRES TO BE PROTECTED FROM OVERFLOW ORAIWGE.
I EA EM NTS OVER LUNDSC PFO AREAS SHALL BE GRAN EO
N.TIObLSNE CIITYI6 PUDM$TOWN DRAtx
PROPOSED DIP UTERI (� I ..-. ` z1. T.
THIS SNNEEN SIGN IS A SINDCE FATLY SL9IGOIYISI ILOn 1 1 6 PAIECT
PROPOSED vcP aWER - - CIVIL cmE STATE vO1ii�FmxlAAND
_ - • ` U.C.IS FELEDBPUR9IANT TO SUBDIVISION WP ACT.
x r ... ,` IVjp^� 22.NE SITE WILL NOT SE GATED.
TYPICAL SECTION �,4\ PARK fEX TINCP 3\ "�
INTEAIOR STREET NG PARKING'I(ST$TS O.E.G.E.4 J.K.L.N AND RI �\ \ AMMF�NITY ENGINEER/CONTACT PERSON R
WELL S}TE _. 0 y NIS MAP WAS PREPARED I14R TIE DIREm ION OF MARTEN L.ADERSON. y,
"'3,�,_ } p A IEGISTEREO CIVIL ENCIEER IN TIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
PJI.E. 23IJJ' Bs BICWRO In O MEILL DATE 4✓j cry CNN
P. I + J - RCE 85285.EXPIRES 6-SD-11 HPPQ ;fO"
^ �� :. —_---- --L3 OWNER/APPLICANT/DEVELOPER
. _.
.6T' ----------�._�.w:xr.arn -r+..v�sssi-tee —
;;-_., •-.._ XIDNPoINTE COYNITIES
C PAVF/AENT LIT LixE 'XIs=INc 15 ENTERPRISE SMITE 250
PROPOSED v =ET<Ixlxc MALL
RIXL CURB liYPl PROPOSER k150 VIEJO,G 9M56
ROLL CURB ITYPI TARO ORUO ATM:STEVE LLOWIG
'Tv GF EiTi x ul" TENTATIVE TRAOT 32655
/'(�'�f LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PROPOSER OP NArEgI l/� I ryY f FIE Lpp REFERRED ro xEREEN rs 1-iFD IN INS STATE OF CkiFORNu.
`PROPOSED VCP SERER INDEX MAP CYMT/a BITERS IOf.CITY 6 PkY OFSERr.DEStl11BFD As FaLONR:
LOT 1 s TROCTS 34626
. ON FILE IN EOu N2A PAGES BO
FF a NLiO T IROgI BI. REOIOS OF IVERSIGE COINTY. kIFGIOIA.
TYPICAL SECTION rtl.wsr
RITEAIGI STREET NO PARRIND ISTREETS F AND O A FS -F
N.T.S. LOT LINE-,EF 1
Lm LURE
l 5'
R R SpO�aW
BOC I SOC g,9
P.0 P
sTB Lm ARBeER
B 6' 6' 6' E' eASM iS+w3 y
6' R PARXNC to GEU.O�GDOI SDD
-6P� —
PROPOSm AC PAVEMENT
ROLL CURB[TYPE �; PREPOSEO
ROLL CIEm ITYPI SLOPE PER )F
LAIC O
PROPOSEDCUPRA Q� LOTS I THRU 32
PROPOSED VCR SEWER TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PLOT
TYPICAL SECTION NIS
INTERIOR STREET PARKING OIE SIDE(STREETS B.C.M.O AID P) SITE
N..
S
LOT LINE LOT LINE
LOT L I NEiS a w10' iRAIM SOASIU m
wAw
GR hONAwA' F.B..wX M...OY YµtlflLTE�AW.Y
6 LOT LINE-,,,I YI I �6 a I _LOT LINE
R/W I Rn b/ LOL LIRE LOT LINE Ny F VICINITY MAP
/ RTs
76' I 1 I s• LW LME ITYPI
GRATE-w.s
6'SW Y 25' 25' E• 6•SIR I I Y Y
PF=.tl• }
6' 6' PAD=NLry S� n=.LT ryD�.N(,r
AL PAVEMENT AC PAVEMENT ,O a LOT NIREFA S I (tl Be LOT a1
r T Lm MIIER n Y—•60-—-� IID-
= L1� �Q Lm LINE
PROPOSED PROPOSED I = Q�
CUtB ANO OUTER CURB AND OUSTER
FF FF,Vtl'
1 �_= LTf I q
OIUWIADE PAD�NOd' PAID=r0.6'
TYPICAL SECTION mO9nTTi: I sAN rsA. DO INEIE canD lINJr xueER I 1JIEra LN7ll r6-
_T' MIRE SCALE.r=Epp,
COLLEGE diAW AND ENITTER .5,=_ d' i•. 710 1 o
I IN RIFE PARK NLY L� L�
FOI REFERENCE DIRT
ki3. CRADNEGEPLttt YAXA
UNIVERSITY
RK
EYRFEA ttAN
aµ IER PEP PLAVmE OUTE•ao ayE((R Fs=.nv Fs=w.r Fs.-w.m DATE PREPARED :JULY T,2011
PLAn caaG LGT NREm
.DBE PG REVISED:FEBRUARY 10,201E
NaAM LOTS 33 THRU 48 TYPICAL SINGLE AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PLOT FAMILY ATTACHED PLOT TYPICAL CONDOMINIUM PLOT 36342
DATE IN PEYIN0A6 NTS NETS RTS
IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA
mWBn]Ewam�.Nuw WIGS an or 1 w COTE
SHEET 2 0E 3
PM si-130
211/63-15
LOT JI
op,
-730
tAG 2 11/63--75
LOT a
-------------------
<
rM
,A�E W
...........
Aw-
4
ll�ItlT A Kffrz
7HJ
lu
2%
PE�4
It
Lu
Lu
21
PE-a L BOUNDARY DATA TABLE
Ko Na DELTA OR m RAmm lE H
K4 _
.1
<X>
4
14
• to.". ILSO,
<j> ms-37, M.,
FS 141's—2—F1
mrn,n-w IM54:
mi?
WWW
W !M4 ".34,
EQ
LW
PARK P—n —1.1
EiT
F
zz
L4
�47t .73'
0 T --T
orQ'U
92 51•
UNivERsrvy PARK Dflft
----------
.............
.......................
UMT 22 + SCALES f-40'
TENTATIVE TRACT 32655 40
UNIVERSITY PARK
PARED JULY I 2011
REVISED,FEBRUARY 10.1017
Ac=To Lor4otsffy Pw ONK DATE PRE
WWWT5 R-W WrN FWff OM AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
SAE n 36342
TYPICAL SECTION IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA
team
SHEET 3 OF 3
PM 31730
`°�""� `•" MB 21 1/63-75
Vv+ LOT 11
"-- 44
+
+ �+
._
Alb
„
/Y
-
i,,.,.� � � .T.. �v:e9E R� ° ", p�-�•R44TJ_ �,..\ ' +y +aF) \\ �'+ ^r
+...
ok
#° _H i 1 I 1 a�wz 4 �I 4m .°+ Q� \\I \b
L 1JSB -•'^, IT. .. ..� 1D.9 5t _ n _.. ... N __._ 92• EM6TMDf� ETI9I TAEleE2Pli ! B' �� ��'`
t�
Ra I. ";.. -f� ia.a Rai � I I �� N 4 �'�✓ aA+
� � rca
Tm. pp
N �DO
DO
f \
3 w #tz I a�aa jEC I •x
7 mu - wznT
74
I ?7 re=z I" Wui' z A PE z tL,F .c-zs
BOUNDARY DATA �FziF6-
J '--PE=211.9 Ran
Na DELTA DR am Raw LENGTH � 9 'i PE-zta. ai c #A R#137 � f'
NTri'te`W tE.09• T' .
Nz•sovr9 N.9r , m 1 ..iz ... _ PE
Ns•sA•zrW N.N• aK. Kqn. #az
tem]s•zr9 ,N.zr ...: � #x9 #[u ..
,e1•srto-W 3oe.ro• >M -' 12 9] s I � >t,-...... Ra � � � `'-
e=w•ae•oz•
e•eA•oo•sr ItA.ri• In.s3• J"l ._ a� rzz S x znn ` � is. #� •__. � g°' i i sD ..�-- .. eE+at s �,y,, � �
®e•Jf 3]A4 19.90' 11N' SY 5 -/ _. -- Y 1�-1- 2
MJJ J 19'W TT.ei'
FFT6J
® z eo.3A' l ....FcanT C r a• F° .,� f ^z�0 ^�
N32 16 N1• I31.R' .. IIET 9 �� I' ' C4i
®- - ry N rtQ - 1
1-1-14� EIT.ao• sm.m• �" � �T LJLII r,� "" I �' o__�aAe ff� eEatu �.. �y+ ''•\ Q ry>>O�h
r #u
x44'22'4e'E 9N.1e' \
T q
NN•N'1 TE 1H.3,• -
xN9•N'1T•E 1]l.N' II I I I O.9 F - �' � .. \ ^
e=]r t]'10• NT.00' N1.N' fr.41 R#I, 2nT RQI. RayT r ..." `
IAY ro'ri"W N.eT• tN Rt 1 PE rEaeA #t]A PE#n1 .. ......M,.._.._....D_. � ... P '�,
M)r1T'AY'E ec.T]• ....._... ,__...
... REYOVE O03TDID WUL '-.••M .. '..
+ siik
EWI5T01G
�~ TENTATIVE TRACT 32655 40 0 b b
UNIVERSITY PARK
DATE PREPARED ,JULY 1,2011
OIDD.TT BLDD.71 9LDG e9 E z•mBol REVISED,FEBRUARY 10.2017
•OTE—ITS 3-T AND N2-W WITH FRONT PItORPo01. fF.a60 E OLDG TE
DOOR ACCESS TO LMIVERSITY PARR DRIVE FF.an1 NTS FF.att] FF.ata1 L mro�eu AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
WlF .T �TPOiDOm NALL -PE DIOIEMG TALL H fF. 36342
A TYPICAL SECTION B TYPICAL SECTION L TYPICAL SECTION IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA f
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019 — 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto
Commissioner John Greenwood
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna
Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt
Absent:
Chair Ron Gregory
Staff Present:
Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney
Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development
Bo Chen, City Engineer
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
None
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2019.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and
a 3-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, and Holt; NOES:
None; ABSENT: Gregory; ABSTAINED: Pradetto), the Consent Calendar was approved as
presented.
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
None
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Auto Desert
to expand its car dealership outdoors and display up to 10 automobiles within its
shared parking lot for sale purposes located at 74-990 Joni Drive, Unit Al, and
adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Case No. CUP 17-111 (Auto Desert, Palm Desert, California, Applicant).
Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, continue this item to March 19,
2019. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-0 vote
(AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory).
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit application to expand
an existing 11,089-square-foot place of worship by 3,630 square feet within an existing
office and industrial building located at 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Suite 104-114; and
adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Case No. CUP 19-0001 (The Rock Church, Palm Desert, California
Applicant).
Assistant Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at
www.cityof palm desert.org). He noted that staff did not receive any comments in favor or
opposed to this matter. Staff recommended approval.
Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter.
With no testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
2
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2753, approving Case No. CUP 19-0001, subject to the
conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by
a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT:
Gregory).
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of an appeal by Dr. Jeff Suderman of a decision by
the Zoning Administrator to approve an Administrative Use Permit to allow the
construction of a horse shelter for the recreational stabling for up to three (3) horses on
a residential estate property located at 77-630 Delaware Place; and adoption of a Notice
of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. AUP
19-0001 (Marc and Jenny Gerhardt Thousand Palms California Applicant).
Mr. Melloni gave a PowerPoint presentation, reviewing the staff report in detail. Staff mailed
notices to property owners within 300 feet from the project site on January 30, 2019, and
February 14, 2019. Staff received comments from property owners voicing their concern with
odor, dust, and viewsheds. At the end of his report, he offered to answer any questions.
Historically, Commissioner Nancy DeLuna inquired if horses have been in the area or
Residential Estate (RE) zone.
Mr. Melloni answered yes, generally; however, not many horses.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant is requesting to shelter two horses.
Mr. Melloni replied yes, explaining that the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) allows for
two adult horses and one pony (up to three). The applicant is requesting two adult horses
on the property.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the horse shelter would be 100 feet from the closest resident
to the north.
Mr. Melloni replied yes. He stated that the PDMC requires a 100-foot setback from the
northern property line, which the applicant meets.
Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there was any discussion with the applicant
concerning horses going out of the stable area.
Mr. Melloni said yes. Per the PDMC, the horses could only be within the horse shelter and
not allowed to run free on the property.
Commissioner Greenwood asked what conditions are in place specific to noise if it were to
become an issue.
Mr. Melloni responded that the Commission could potentially require the applicant to plant a
landscape barrier to create a type of noise attenuation.
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto asked staff to explain how discretionary an Administrative
Use Permit (AUP) is in comparison to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
3
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
Mr. Melloni explained that the PDMC allows AUPs for uses anticipated not to create a major
impact on surrounding land uses. For example, AUPs are permitted to allow restaurants
along the Highway 111 corridor or ancillary retail and restaurants in industrial and office
parks.
Commissioner Pradetto inquired if the Zoning Administrator has the ability to deny an AUP
if the applicant demonstrates compliance with the code.
Mr. Melloni replied no.
Principal Planner Eric Ceja interjected that under an AUP; it is anticipated to have a minor
impact on surrounding properties. Therefore, it is a semi-administrative act allowing staff
approval. City staff is required to make three findings: 1) the request must comply with the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the General Plan. He noted that the Zoning
Ordinance has standards for this type of use; 2) the site must be adequately suited for the
type of request. He stated staff felt an acre size property is well suited for this request; and
3) the Zoning Administrator must determine that the request is not detrimental to public
health, safety, or interest. He communicated that the applicant met the minimum setback
standards established in the Zoning Ordinance and there are mitigation measures
recommended as conditions. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator and staff did not deny the
request. Staff applied conditions to mitigate any impacts.
Commissioner Pradetto made clear that the disagreement is on the subjective nature of the
health and welfare in terms of the property is not a conducive site, which is not the Zoning
Administrator's subjective decision. He conveyed that the decision is based on the PDMC,
which states the site must be an acre in size and meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Ceja replied that is correct.
Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell added that the Zoning Ordinance in
Chapter 25 defines certain levels of authorities. The Principal Planner is deemed the Zoning
Administrator. He said when interpreting an application, the request rises to the Director of
Community Development then the City Manager. Concerning this matter, the interpretation
stopped with the Zoning Administrator and the Director because the three findings were met.
Vice-Chair Holt asked if landscaping at the rear of the property was discussed with the
applicant.
Mr. Melloni replied that staff and the applicant had brief discussions.
Vice-Chair Holt asked if the applicant would be amenable to the installation of a hedge.
Mr. Melloni deferred the question to the applicant.
Vice-Chair Holt inquired if the entire property would be fenced outside of the horse shelter in
the event a horse gets loose.
Mr. Melloni replied yes.
4
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
Vice-Chair Holt asked what recourse would the residents have if the applicant was to move
forward and issues arise with stabling horses, such as odor and dust.
Mr. Melloni responded that the residents could contact him or the Code Compliance Division
to address any issues with the applicant.
Vice-Chair Holt asked what would happen if the applicant does not address issues.
Mr. Melloni answered that staff would move to revoke the AUP and have the horses removed
from the property.
Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter
MR. MARC GERHARDT, Applicant, Thousand Palms, California, informed the Commission
that in April 2018 he and his wife found the property advertised as a horse property. They
were excited to be able to build on the property and bring their two horses with them. He
said he and his wife worked with a builder and an architect to draw up plans. He met with
Mr. Melloni to make sure all codes and regulations were met. Mr. Melloni explained to him
that the City of Palm Desert has very strict rules and he agreed to adhere to all the strict
rules and regulations. For that reason, they proceeded to build the house and notify
neighbors about the intention to put two horses on the property. He stated that they do not
exercise the horses on the property, and clean the stables every day and sometimes twice
a day. He stated that he does not want a fly problem. He said manure is stored in a covered
container and picked up once a week. They keep their property immaculate, and people that
have lived next to them would agree. He stated that they pride themselves in being good
neighbors and not an adversary. He said they purchased the property in good faith under
the understanding that they could have the horses on the property. He expressed that they
would not do anything to violate or jeopardize their ability to have horses on their property.
He mentioned that they do intend on adding landscaping to the rear wall to help mitigate any
nuisances.
Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if they have owned horses before. If so, did they
stable the horses near residents?
MR. GERHARDT replied absolutely. Horses were on their property at previous residences.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if they have a good track record for keeping horses on their
property and adhering to all the rules and regulations.
MR. GERHARDT replied that he has never had a complaint in Garner Valley or Thousand
Palms.
Commissioner Pradetto asked where the applicant would place the covered dumpster on
the property.
MR. GERHARDT believed they would place the dumpster in the shelter.
Vice-Chair Holt asked the applicant what methods they would use to control flies.
5
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
MR. GERHARDT responded that they would use fly spray and install a misting system.
Vice-Chair Holt inquired how the applicant would store the feed.
MR. GERHARDT said they would section an area of the shelter for the hay and keep pellet
feed in metal containers.
When a horse(s) needs a veterinarian or farrier, Vice-Chair Holt asked if the horse(s) would
be serviced on the property or take them off the property for service.
MR. GERHARDT replied that they have had the horses serviced on and off the property. He
stated that they would do what the Planning Commission suggests them to do.
Vice-Chair Holt asked what material would be used in the barn area to mitigate dust.
MR. GERHARDT responded that the misters would help mitigate dust and they would water
down the area.
MR. JOHN GILHULY, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, commented that he has
lived in his home for 23 years and was aware the zoning for the lots behind his boundary
wall allowed horses. However, has never known of horses to be on any of the lots on
Delaware Place, Mountain View, or Robin Road (streets with estate size lots). He believed
the zoning is a relic when the area was Riverside County and later annexed in 1993 by the
Palm Desert. He also believed the City would not adopt this type of zoning in new areas of
the City. He respected the applicant's right to have horses on the property. He expressed
his frustration with the short perimeter of notification and that he only found out about the
horses from a neighbor. He voiced his concern with flies and odor, which could be
unbearable during the hot months.
MR. JERALD BAILEY, Brighton Street, Palm Desert, California, stated that his issues were
addressed and had no further comments.
MS. JOLENE CYR, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, stated she bought her
home 34 years ago, which is located directly north of the proposed project. She noted that
everyone knows if you live on a ranch or farm; you never build stables, barns, or corrals next
to your house. She pointed out that the applicant is building the horse shelter next to her
house, which is 100 percent of her back wall. She voiced her concern with flies, not able to
enjoy her backyard, and depreciation of her property value due to horse odor. She also
stated that the notification concerning this matter was short notice.
MR. MIKE SCHWARTZ, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, stated he has
breathing problems and is on oxygen 16 hours a day. He felt it is not fair to the neighbors to
be subjected to the proposed project.
MR. DAN WITTEMAN, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, commented that he
and his wife have lived in their home for 33 years. When they first moved into the area, there
were a couple of horses about four houses away from their home. He stated that there were
many flies, and when there were winds, they smelled the odor of horses. He was thankful
when the residents moved out of the area after three years. Since then, there have been no
horses in the area. He expressed that horses do not belong in a residential neighborhood.
6
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
He asked why the City did not give residents the opportunity to comment prior to the AUP
approval in January. He felt this matter is not fair to the applicant or the residents.
DR. JEFF SUDERMAN, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, stated that he is also
representing residents that were not able to attend this meeting. He mentioned he recently
played golf at Desert Willow and thought that Palm Desert would never allow horses within
100 feet from the tee box. However, the City made a decision to approve a horse shelter
within 100 feet from their backyards. When he spoke to City staff, they explained to him that
this is a simple bureaucratic process to indicate a policy was followed. He believed approval
of the proposed project would be precedent setting. Therefore, it needs careful and more
consideration by the City's public servants, public servants who act in the interest of all
taxpayers. He listed five reasons to be concerned with this project: 1) they have legacy
bylaws that do not fit the current makeup of the City of Palm Desert, which are bylaws
inherited from Riverside County. The legacy bylaw no longer fits the character or the long-
term vision of the City; 2) the City decided this project was not detrimental to public interest.
However, the site backs up to medium- and high-density neighborhood backyards, which is
detrimental; 3) the City decided this project would not negatively be an impact on the health
and welfare of the public. He stated this project would cause odor, allergies, fly and rat issues
for neighbors; 4) the City decided this project was not detrimental to the public interest or
materially injurious. He said realtors and land assessors have indicated otherwise, which is
detrimental to the public interest; and 5) the City only notified residents within 300 feet of the
proposed project. He believed the 300 feet is grossly inadequate, noting that fecal odor does
not limit itself to 300 feet. He said the Salton Sea is evidence of that. He communicated that
legacy bylaws have created this issue and caused this issue to arise. Therefore, he looked
forward to the City revoking the Zoning Administrator's decision.
MS. ZELDA SMITH, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, voiced her concern with
flies and her allergies. She has to take medication because she is allergic to dust, grass,
trees, dogs, cats, and more. She is also concerned with losing her views and not being able
to enjoy her backyard.
MR. SCOTT CROFUT, Edinborough Street, Palm Desert, California, commented that the
main reasons they bought their home in the area were for the views and most of the houses
on Delaware Place were up front enough that they would not be impacted. He mentioned a
couple of years ago the City approved an RV barn that overlooks his entire backyard and he
no longer has views. He stated that he was a little upset with the City for not allowing the
neighbors to have input until two outs in the ninth inning. He felt the project would affect
dozens of homeowners and they are being overlooked and overshadowed for one resident.
MS. CAROL NORHEIM, Hastings Street, Palm Desert, California, voiced her opposition of
the project. She felt bad that they are all complaining about something that is already in the
works and finds it difficult knowing that this matter was not dealt with a long time ago. She
mentioned she had a friend that lived in the area back in the 70s and 80s, and she used to
ride her horses around Mountain View and Robin Road. However, it was a different time in
the 70s and 80s in which there was a lot of open space in those days. She stated that
Delaware Place is not horse country or rural area. Landscaping is not going to help mitigate
flies and odor during the brutal summers.
7
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
MR. ROGER KRANZ, Missouri Drive, Palm Desert, California, listed questions he has for
City staff: 1) how many horses are currently in the City of Palm Desert; 2) how many one-
acre estates are there in Palm Desert; 3) is Delaware Place and the other two blocks in Palm
Desert the only streets that have one-acre lots; and 4) would the City approve a request if
someone wants to have a chicken coop, a pigeon coop, a cow, a sheep, or a dog kennel.
Additionally, he questioned how the applicant is going to have a corrugated metal roof in an
area that has 110-degree temperatures 100 days in a row, which he believed is harmful to
the horses. He voiced his concern with odor and asked the applicant to store his horses
elsewhere.
Commissioner Pradetto asked staff to respond to the question concerning keeping other
animals, such as chickens, on residential properties.
Mr. Stendell responded that the General Plan (Chapter 5 Health & Wellness) suggests the
City be more flexible with residential uses in the future. He shared that many studies suggest
allowing chickens in residential zones. However, it has not been implemented into the Zoning
Ordinance.
Commissioner Pradetto asked if an AUP runs with the land. He also asked how discretionary
the conditions of approval are and how much leeway is there with an AUP.
Mr. Stendell replied that there is some leeway with an AUP, noting Chapter 25.64.040
outlines the AUP. He indicated that Section E states, ". . . the Zoning Administrator may
impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval will comply with the findings
required, as well as any performance criteria and development standards contained within
this code." He mentioned, if "findings required" included landscaping and food stored in
containers, those are reasonable conditions that could be imposed. He also defined an AUP
to be an anticipated use qualifying for an administrative use review that is minor in nature,
only have an impact on immediately adjacent properties, and can be modified and/or
conditioned to ensure compatibility.
Vice-Chair Holt inquired if the noticing requirements for an AUP the same as a CUP.
Mr. Stendell replied yes. Concerning the number of horses in the City of Palm Desert, he
had no idea. He did not know if there were horses in the neighborhood in the past. He stated
that the only areas in the City with one-acre lots (RE zone) are located between Delaware
Place and Robin Road.
Mr. Melloni noted that horses are only allowed in the RE zone.
Commissioner Pradetto asked if dust generated from horses exceed the amount of dust
generated from a vacant sand dune.
Mr. Stendell replied he did not know.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that nearby residents mentioned the codes might be a
relic of the past. He stated that is not the fault of the Zoning Administrator. If the Zoning
Ordinance changes in the future to be more restrictive or ban horses in the area, he asked
if it is correct that the use would become a non-conforming permitted use. Additionally, if the
current owner sold the property, would the AUP transfer to the new owner.
8
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
With an AUP, Mr. Melloni stated that there is a little more leeway in terms of termination. He
pointed to Condition of Approval No. 12 that states the following, "This AUP approval is non-
transferable and for the exclusive use of the applicant/property owner listed on the project
application."Therefore, any successor in interest must reapply for a new AUP if the property
changes ownership.
In response to a comment made by a resident, MR. GERHARDT said that they have had a
corrugated roof for over 12 years in Thousand Palms. Because of the misting system, they
have never had an issue. He said the reason they are leaving Thousand Palms is due to the
strong wind belt. He has been a full-time resident in the Coachella Valley since 1994 and is
aware that winds predominately come from the northwest area. He felt that the landscaping
should be sufficient to mitigate odors. If they pick-up waste twice a day and keep feed in
containers, he does not foresee an issue. He offered to meet with residents one-on-one or
answer any questions from the Planning Commission.
With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner DeLuna pointed to an exit sign near the Council Chamber doors and asked
staff if the distance is approximately 100 feet from the dais.
Mr. Stendell replied that he is not certain if it is 100 feet unless he gets a tape measure.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that she lived in a neighborhood that allowed horses
and had concerns when she moved in. However, she never had an issue. She stated it is
possible for horses to be good neighbors if they are well cared for and the owner obeys
all the rules. She said she finds it difficult not allowing an owner to enjoy a use, a permitted
use. She pointed out that there are strict conditions and the owner has agreed to obey the
rules.
Vice-Chair Holt voiced her concern with setting a precedent; however, she is also
concerned with the precedent the Planning Commission would set. She communicated
that the current RE zone allows for the owner to have horses on the property. If the
Planning Commission decided to approve the appeal, then the appeal would rescind the
rights of the applicant and set a precedent for anyone moving into the area. She said if
owners are concerned with this issue, the residents or the City needs to look at the Zoning
Ordinance as a whole and not at one particular property. She said it might be true that the
stabling of horses in this area is no longer appropriate. She felt that they could not make
a determination on a parcel-by-parcel basis. She mentioned that she kept her horse
located on Clancy Lane next to $17 million homes, so she knows there is a way for the
two to co-exist. If the Commission decided to approve the AUP, she suggested watering
the dirt and keep food in containers as additional conditions.
Commissioner Pradetto stated that in order to overturn the Zoning Administrator's
decision, he needs clear and convincing evidence that the Zoning Administrator made an
error with the decision. However, he does not see clear evidence of an error. He is
convinced there is a small impact, but is not convinced the idea of precedent is persuasive
because the residents have an opportunity to petition the City Council to amend the
Zoning Ordinance. If the residents are successful, this AUP might be the last to exist in
Palm Desert. He reaffirmed Condition of Approval No. 12 states the AUP is non-
transferable. He also is not convinced shame is a sufficient form of persuasion to say that
9
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
the rules the Zoning Administrator and the City are following bureaucratic relics. He
expressed that this is a law set by the City Council and can be changed. He asserted that
residents knew the RE zone existed or potentially existed and now residents are blaming
the City for throwing this item on them at the last minute. Therefore, he is not persuaded
there is a sufficient reason to overturn the appeal and the nature of an AUP. With that
said, he moved to adopt staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2754, approving Case No. AUP 19-0001, subject to the
conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by
a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT:
Gregory).
D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to the City Council amending the El Paseo Overlay District and the
Downtown District to allow professional office type uses on the ground floor fronting El
Paseo; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 19-0002 (City of Palm Desert, California
Applicant).
Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points in the staff report and offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that the amendment would prohibit medical offices. She
asked if current medical offices would need to relocate or the City would grandfather them
in.
Mr. Ceja replied that the City would grandfather in current medical offices.
Commissioner DeLuna asked what would happen with the post office.
Mr. Ceja responded that the post office resides outside of the El Paseo Overlay District and
the Downtown District.
Commissioner Greenwood asked why medical offices were precluded.
Mr. Ceja believed it had to do with parking and timing. People visiting medical offices are
usually there for an hour or more.
Mr. Stendell added that the City Council directed staff to look at office uses that would add
shoppers and restaurant goers to the street. He explained that staff did not feel medical
offices fit the description. Additionally, medical offices require more parking.
Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the amendment would prohibit attorney offices.
Mr. Ceja replied no and referred to Exhibit A, Section B. The section discloses permitted
office uses.
Commissioner Greenwood asked if the adjacencies and buildings that have both El Paseo
and Presidents' Plaza frontages apply. He also asked if the adjacency applies to the read of
Presidents' Plaza.
10
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
Mr. Ceja replied no, stating that the frontages along Presidents' Plaza are not included in the
overlay.
Vice-Chair Holt pointed out that a word is missing in Exhibit A, Section C, and Item B after
the word intellectual.
Mr. Ceja responded that staff would add the word "property."
Vice-Chair Holt inquired how staff would maintain the 15 percent of ground floor office
frontage within each block.
Mr. Ceja responded that all office uses would need a CUP. A CUP would allow staff to do
an analysis on the lineal frontage and allow the Planning Commission to review the plans.
Mr. Stendell interjected that a geographic information system (GIS) layer would assist staff
in maintaining the 15 percent of ground floor frontage.
Commissioner DeLuna inquired if a massage parlor would be allowed on El Paseo.
In the past, Mr. Stendell said that the City allowed massage parlors with a CUP on El Paseo.
Mr. Ceja noted that massage parlors are allowed on El Paseo; however, the City's massage
ordinance requires a 1,000 feet separation from another massage establishment. With
massage parlors on Highway 111, it is difficult to have a massage parlor on El Paseo.
Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the massage parlor would need to be part of a day spa.
Mr. Ceja explained a massage parlor could not be the primary use; therefore, it would have
to be part of a day spa.
Vice-Chair Holt asked if engineering and architectural offices would be allowed on El Paseo.
Mr. Ceja said yes, subject to a CUP.
Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter.
MR. MICHAEL CORLISS, El Paseo, Palm Desert, California, stated that he and Ms.
Masha Vincelette are in favor of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA). They are also
in favor of Case No. ZOA 19-0001. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time.
MR. DAVID FLETCHER, Covered Wagon Trail, Palm Desert, California, stated he has
been in Palm Desert for 35 years and manages several buildings on El Paseo. He noted
that he is speaking on behalf of his company and expressed they are in favor of relaxing
the ordinance. Mr. Fletcher commented that retail is changing substantially and El Paseo
has always been a long street for retail. Therefore, it is more important now for the City to
allow other uses as opposed to vacancies. He felt it would be better to let the property
owners and the market decide the course of the uses rather than the City dictating specific
prohibitions. For this reason, he recommended the ordinance be eliminated and no
conditions.
11
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
In reference to Mr. Fletcher's comments, Commissioner Pradetto said he is sensitive to
that idea and letting the market take care of itself. He commented that El Paseo is an
evolving thing and the ZOA is a step in that direction, and less risky. He supported the
ZOA and moved for approval.
Commissioner Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2755, approving Case No. ZOA 19-0002. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood,
Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory).
E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to the City Council amending the City's Zoning Map to expand the
Downtown Core Overlay District to select parcels located along El Paseo and Highway
111; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Case No. ZOA 19-0001 (City of Palm Desert, California,
Applicant).
Mr. Ceja reviewed the staff report. He noted that staff mailed out a public notice and
comments received were in favor of the ZOA. He offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner DeLuna pointed to the map and asked if the areas shaded in red with the
black hatches are the areas where four-story buildings would be allowed.
Mr. Ceja replied that the areas shaded in red with black hatches is the existing Downtown
Core Overlay District.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the current overlay excludes residential on the first floor.
Mr. Ceja replied yes.
Commissioner DeLuna asked what the addition to the overlay expansion is.
Mr. Ceja pointed to the map indicating the changes to the proposed overlay expansion.
He clarified that residential would not be allowed on the first floor.
Commissioner Greenwood inquired if staff has any concerns or potential issues with the
smaller corner lots.
Mr. Ceja responded that City staff, Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and Planning
Commission would thoroughly review the plans submitted for consideration. When
reviewing a four-story building, they would look at stepping the building back and finding
a way to make the building lighter on the street.
With the increased density, Commissioner Greenwood asked if the City would consider
and review parking.
Mr. Ceja replied yes.
12
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
If California moves away from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
requirements and traffic studies, Vice-Chair Holt asked if Palm Desert has made a
determination as to what the threshold would be for VMTs and how the City would handle
traffic studies in the future.
Mr. Stendell replied no. He communicated that in the most recent General Plan update,
the City allocated trips at a much higher amount because the City is trying to create
neighborhoods that are attractive to all generations of buyers.
With the addition of four-story buildings, Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the City is going
to require subterranean parking.
Mr. Ceja responded that the City would determine parking by a project-by-project basis.
Mr. Stendell added that it is highly likely some of the smaller parcels would have
subterranean parking if the applicant wants to move forward.
Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter.
MS. BARBARA SATTLEY, San Luis Rey, Palm Desert, California, stated that she lives
behind Ristorante Mamma Gina. She voiced her concern with four-story buildings, noting
the change would be dynamic. She requested a copy of the Downtown Core Overlay
Expansion map.
MR. CORLISS stated that he is also in favor of ZOA 19-0001.
Commissioner Pradetto asked if any of the proposed parcels for four stories are currently
vacant.
Mr. Stendell responded that the former Union Bank site is vacant.
With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that they have discussed four-story buildings before.
He believed it would not happen tomorrow and whoever purchases these parcels would
need to invest a lot of money to remove a current building and rebuild. Looking into the
future, he said it is consistent with the direction the City wants to go with bringing more
life and residents to the El Paseo area. He declared in favor of the ZOA.
Commissioner Greenwood commented that any proposed plans would be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. The expansion would give the City the opportunity and more flexibility
to provide the best project and moved for approval.
Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2756, approving Case No. ZOA 19-0001. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood,
Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory).
13
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2019
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
None
B. PARKS & RECREATION
None
XIII. COMMENTS
Commissioner DeLuna commented that the Commission received a memorandum from
Best Best & Krieger (BB&K). She asked if there is an explanation for the memorandum.
Mr. Stendell said BB&K sends City staff routine updates when the laws change. He noted
that the memorandum from BB&K was a routine update related to the 500-foot rule. He
informed the Commission if they have a question or concern, City staff and BB&K are
available to answer any questions.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With the Planning Commission concurrence, Vice-Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at
7:45 p.m.
LINDSAY HOLT, VICE-CHAIR
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY
14
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2019
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Consideration to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate an
indoor 4,800-square-foot kennel-free doggy daycare/overnight boarding
and grooming facility within a portion of an existing industrial building
located at 42-620 Caroline Court, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2757,
approving CUP 19-0005 for a 4,800-square-foot indoor kennel-free doggy
daycare/overnight boarding and grooming facility within a portion of the 7,200-
square-foot industrial building, subject to the conditions of approval; and
approval of a notice of exemption in accordance with CEQA.
Executive Summary
Approval of staff's recommendation will approve a CUP allowing a kennel-free doggy
daycare/overnight boarding and grooming facility. The business will operate seven (7) days
a week between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The business will have between 30 and
50 dogs during the day and between 10 and 25 dogs overnight.
Background Analysis
A. Property Description:
The 7,200 square-foot building is located on the northeast side of Caroline Court, north of
Sheryl Avenue, and east of Cook Street.
On March 6, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Precise Plan 90-2 by Resolution No.
1426. The approval allowed three separate single-story buildings totaling 30,000 square feet
with a common parking lot.
Today, all three buildings and the parking lot are constructed with access off Caroline Court.
The applicant is in escrow to purchase Building A that is 7,200 square feet, which currently
has two tenants: a religious institution and doctor's office. The applicant will utilize 4,800
square feet, and the church will continue to operate within the remainder of the building.
Building A has 20 parking spaces directly in front of the building that the applicant will use.
May 21, 2019 — Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. CUP 19-0005 The Village Pup
Page 2 of 4
B. General Plan and Zoning:
Zone: Service Industrial (SI)
General Plan: Employment (E)
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: SI; Office and Industrial uses
South: SI; Office and Industrial uses
East: SI; Office and Industrial uses
West: SI; Vacant Land
Project Description
The Village Pup is a kennel-free daycare/overnight boarding and grooming facility, with 24-hour
staffing. This will be their second location within the Coachella Valley. They currently have a
location in Old Town La Quinta.
The daycare hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week. In
season, there will be an average of 30 to 50 dogs during the day. Customer drop-off and pick-
up typically take three (3) to five (5) minutes per customer. At the La Quinta facility, the applicant
states that at one time they may have two customers arrive at the same time. The overnight
boarding will occur indoors, and the average is 10 to 25 dogs per night. All overnight dogs will
be supervised at all times.
The business will have eight (8) to 10 employees year round. The daily staff consists of four (4)
employees working at one-time, and the evening staff consists of two (2) to three (3) employees.
The site has a shared parking lot with 68 parking spaces. There are 20 parking spaces directly
in front of the proposed building. The existing driveway access off Caroline Court will remain.
The applicant will not alter the exterior of the building other than adding identification signage.
Analysis
The use of a boarding facility requires the approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission to
ensure there is adequate parking and land use compatibility with surrounding properties and
uses. The surrounding properties and uses consist of a variety of offices, light industrial uses,
warehouse, and distribution.
The project as designed and proposed complies with all development standards for the zone,
including parking and land use compatibility. The use will not add additional traffic to the area
since the facility operates with minimal employees, and pet owners drop-off and pick-up their
pets in a timely manner.
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 opposition to the project based on potential noise from barking dogs.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP'S\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Staff Report-Village Pup(Autosaved).docx
May 21, 2019— Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. CUP 19-0005 The Village Pup
Page 3 of 4
A. Land Use Compatibility:
CUPs are discretionary and viewed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the site is
surrounded by existing industrial and office uses. Staff believes that boarding facilities are
best located within the SI zone based on potential noise impacts. The potential of indoor
barking dogs should not be any louder than a distribution center or any light industrial
business. The business operation of seven (7) days a week between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. is compatible with regular business hours. All overnight boarding of the dogs
is done indoors so they will not create added noise from barking during the evening hours.
Staff is recommending approval of this use based on the Village Pup's proven track record
of being a good neighbor at its La Quinta location. Furthermore, staff has placed a condition
that if any noise becomes disturbing, excessive or offensive to the business owners in the
area, and is reported by any eight (8) unrelated persons of normal sensitivity within one
(1) year, staff will reconsider the CUP with a new public hearing to the Planning
Commission to recommend modifying or revoking the CUP.
As conditioned, the project should 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:
Chapter 25.46 Off-street Parking and Loading requires animal boarding facilities to provide
one (1) parking space per five (5) animal runs/suites. Since the business model is kennel-
free, staff calculated the parking demand based on the most aggressive number of 50 dogs
(the business will rarely have that many dogs at once), which would require 10 parking
spaces. In addition, the business will have up to four(4) employees working at one time. The
business will require 14 parking spaces. Staff believes that the 14 parking spaces is too high
for this type of business since customers drop-off and pick-up their dogs and are on-site for
approximately three (3) to five (5) minutes.
The project has 68 shared parking spaces with 20 spaces in front of the building. With the
operating hours and type of business, staff believes there is adequate on-site parking, and
the use will not create a negative parking impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
G:\Planning\Kevin SWartzkWord\CUP's\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Staff Report-Village Pup(Autosaved).docx
May 21, 2019 — Planning Commission Staff Report
Case No. CUP 19-0005 The Village Pup
Page 4 of 4
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
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has
prepared a Notice of Exemption of Environmental Impact. The notice is attached as part of
this report and filing of the notice has occurred in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER
N/A pq�� N/A N/A
Ryan Stendell
Robert W. Hargreaves Director of Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian
City Attorney Community Director of Finance City Manager
Development
APPLICANT: The Village Pup
50855 Washington Street, Suite C232
La Quinta, CA 92253
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2757
2. Legal Notice
3. Notice of Exemption
4. Exhibits Provided by the Applicant
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Staff Report-Village Pup(Autosaved).docx
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2757
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) TO OPERATE AN INDOOR 4,800-SQUARE-FOOT
KENNEL-FREE DOGGY DAYCARE/OVERNIGHT BOARDING AND
GROOMING FACILITY WITHIN A PORTION OF AN EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 42-620 CAROLINE COURT, AND
ADOPTION OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQAy,
CASE NO: CUP 19-0005
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of"". t, California, did on the
21st day of May 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing toensiderthefrequest by The Village
Pup, LLC. for approval of the above-noted; and E
WHEREAS, according to the California,ffi-N iionmental Quality Act QA), the City
must determine whether a proposed activity,18�:O`(rproject subject to CEQA.°T'j project is
subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a prelimii ry ssess e ro determine
e
whether the project is exempt from CEQA rev� ,tN Ifproject is not exempt, further
rf
environmental review is necessary. Thy application`b6"s,complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Procedure fot'IrAp'-, Jentation of,tb California Environmental Quality
1,.,
Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in that th E itOmr,of,CommU i i Development has determined
that the proposed project is an Article 9, Clas` .* IJn Fill 070; lopment Projects (15332)
Categorical Exemption for purposes of GtQA and i fther review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the p'roposecf�project ce f6rms to the development standards in the
City's Zoning Ordip hce for the Se*Ace IndwA al zoning district; and
WHEREAS, t ,`ParcelJxs 6Jt"' 6 thin b Service Industrial zoning district, which
allows varip s hypes of es, d lists " b� t g facilities" as conditionally permitted uses;
and .. ;
-,-WHEREAS, at t6,'---said 0-u ±I c hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, if all inf0f,,.'bsted persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission E did find the f6l(6;wing facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report
reasons to approve the said,tbquest:
FINDINGS FOR'A►PPRQ1rAL:
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 Service Industrial (SI) zoning district. The purpose of
the Sl zoning district is to allow for the manufacture, distribution, and service of
products intended for use with the City and uses that are consistent with the
residential, resort, and recreational character of the community. Over the years, staff
has allowed non-retail commercial uses within the SI. zone as long as they are
compatible and do not impact the adjacent businesses. The proposal for a kennel-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2757
free doggy daycare and boarding facility requires a CUP to ensure land use
compatibility and establish parking requirements. It can be determined that the
approval of this CUP subject to the attached conditions, is consistent with the
existing surrounding land uses and with the on-site parking requirements. The type
of activity conducted at the proposed site is a community resource to the public, but
typically is not favored in residential, office professional, or existing planned
commercial zones so it is appropriately located in a SI zone. The interior building
when constructed will conform to all development standards contained in the zoning
ordinance and the building code.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the Conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental J' the public health, safety,
or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or imprgiements in the vicinity.
Specific conditions have been placed on the kophel free dog ""'daycare and boarding
facility to meet all applicable requirement$ fhe Zoning Ordiftange. The business
operation of seven (7) days a week betei7the hours of 7:00 a mnd 6:00 p.m. is
compatible with regular business hours,?, project, q -mitigated by ffi6 gonditions of
approval, will not be detrimental to gdh#ral pubfi# health, safety, and welfare or
materially injurious to the properties in the v►cr �er, sanitation, public utilities, and
services are already constructed end availablehhpghout the surrounding area.
The proposed interior improve ri3� f .the buildmg,nriU comply with all building, life
safety, and environmental standards dufirrig constructrottgand continued operations,
including stormwat�eiischarge, l �Ith Ircnsn ��,�af►de prevention strategies. All
building and site ifn i , ments wilM" ""'k with (fie Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Therefore,,--the cotVitional us_& ill not be detrimental to public health, safety,
or welfare, atrd.'will enhanc..e,�urroundirr��properties rather than detract from them.
3. That the prop6ss, .co[104 6`66' F,,u �wjll comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this title., except ',reapproved Va`ria.h es, or adjustments.
The existing /ldrng��rid proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development staridords fdr including parking and land use compatibility, all operational
zet
tadards containedn the ing code, and is consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. The orgzation operates aservice-based use that operates throughout
the d uring norrnQ%, usiness hours. The operation hours during the evening occurs
indoors 'h n ad' businesses are closed. This use will provide a service to the
community rn a l60a#ion that will not cause disturbances to its adjacent neighbors. The
proposed use d es not require the 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 General Plan Land Use designation for the site is "Employment District." The
intent is to provide a wide variety of office-intensive activity that could include some
manufacturing and light industrial businesses. The proposed business will be geared
towards clientele in the area and outside of the Coachella Valley. A primary objective
stated in the Land Use & Community Care of the General Plan under Industrial Goals
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Reso 2757.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2757
is to provide for the development of business parks and non-polluting industrial uses,
and which assures compatible integration with other, non-industrial land uses. The non-
industrial use of a kennel-free doggy daycare and boarding facility is a non-polluting
use and offers the City to expand its business portfolio to residents and tourist. The
proposed use will be using the same built improvements, rather than constructing new
ones that would be used a small percentage of the time.
This project maintains a land use that is consistent with the goals, policies, and
programs of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan in
respect to the appropriate use of a kennel-free doggy dZZIM!
, and boarding facility at
the proposed location. The business is compatible with nding land uses, and is
A
effectively located in a remote area and occupiespion of an existing building
where it will not cause any disturbances to adjacent,,` n
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ARLANNING MISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLL
s r
1. That the above recitations are trues and correct Arad constitute' ,findings for
approval of the Planning Commission"i this case
2. That the Planning Commis,$j, p does here b rove CUP 19-0005, subject to the
conditions of approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND A TE Plan Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, s .regular ting 2 t day of May 2019, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ARSE ,
AB .`c. IN:
RON GREGORY, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP'S\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Reso 2757 doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2757
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO: CUP 19-0005
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. The development of the property described herein shall be,.,,$abject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to al 'Unicipal 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 se contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permi " nd/or cleara�� from the following
agencies:
Building & Safety Department j
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Coachella Valley Water Distri
Evidence of said permit or clearafr eF above g pies shall be presented to the
Department of Building & Safety at time'' an of ;,building permit for the use
contemplated herewith '
4. The applicant sh end, i nify a bld harmless the City against any third party
legal challeng these ap "'vals, witounsel chosen by the City at applicant's
expense.
5. The ;r;� shall "'°°a sign"
n to the City's Department of Community
Dev ry b mounted or monument signs associated with the project.
6. The business may operate s (7) days a week, 24 hours a day.
s
7. All dogs shall be su 0 at all times.
8. If any noise becomesi #urbing, excessive or offensive to the residents in the area and
is reported by any;eigtf`(8) unrelated persons of normal sensitivity within a year, staff
will reconsider the. .CUP with a new public hearing to the Planning Commission to
recommend modifying or revoking the CUP.
9. Building mounted lighting fixtures shall conform to the City's Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance.
10.The applicant shall keep animal waste out of the storm drainage system.
11.The applicant shall submit a pet waste removal and facility housekeeping program to the
Department of Community Development/Planning prior to building occupancy.
GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Reso 2757.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2757
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY:
12. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes.
A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards.
B. 2016 California Residential Code and its appendices and standards.
C. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
D. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
E. 2016 California Electrical Code.
F. 2016 California Energy Code.
G. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code.
H. Title 24 California Code of Regulations.
I. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
13. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 &
11 B-206).
14. 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
15. 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.
16.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.
17. 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.
18. 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, a stroke of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height
from the 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.
GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\OUP's\CUP 19-0005 Village Pup Caroline Court\PC Reso 2757 doc
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. CUP 19-0005
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A KENNEL-
FREE DOGGY DAYCARE/OVERNIGHT BOARDING AND GROOMING FACILITY. THE
BUSINESS WILL OCCUR WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING WITHIN THE SERVICE
INDUSTRIAL ZONE. THE BUSINESS WILL OPERATE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK BETWEEN
THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. THERE WILL BE 30-50 DOGS DURING THE
DAY AND 10-25 DOGS OVERNIGHT. ALL OVERNIGHT DOGS ARE BROUGHT INSIDE
BY 6:00 P.M. THE BUSINESS WILL HAVE EMPLOYEES WORKING 24 HOURS A DAY.
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: 42620 Caroline Court
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve and adopt a
resolution supporting the project request.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on May 21,
2019, 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 May 11 to May 21,
2019.
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
May 11, 2019 Palm Desert Planning Commission
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Palm Desert
P. O. Box 3044, Room 212
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
❑ Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
or
❑ County Clerk
County of:
1. Project Title ❑ CUP 19-0005
2. Project Applicant: The Village Pup
;, Project Location Identify street addr ❑The 7,200 square-foot building is located on
ess ,
and cross streets or attach a map the northeast side of Caroline Court, north of
showing project site (preferably a USGS Sheryl Avenue, and east of Cook Street.
15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified
by quadrangle name):
4. (a) Project Location — City: 42620 Caroline Court
(b) Project Location — County: Riverside County
5. Description of nature, purpose, and Approval of staffs recommendation will
beneficiaries of Project: approve a CUP allowing a kennel-free doggy
daycare/overnight boarding and grooming
facility. The business will operate seven (7)
days a week between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. The business will have between
30 and 50 dogs during the day and between 10
and 25 dogs overnight.
6. Name of Public Agency approving City of Palm Desert
project:
7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking City of Palm Desert
the project, including any person
undertaking an activity that receives
financial assistance from the Public
Agency as part of the activity or the
person receiving a lease, permit, license,
certificate, or other entitlement of use i
from the Public Agency as part of the j
activity: I
8. Exempt status: (check one)
(a) ❑ Ministerial project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA
Guidelines § 15268)
(b) ❑ Not a project.
Notice of Exemption FORM"B"
(c) ❑ Emergency Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA
Guidelines § 15269(b),(c))
(d) ® Categorical Exemption. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as
State type and class the Lead Agency for this project under the
number: CEQA, has determined that the proposed project
request is categorically exempt under Class 32:
In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA.
Because of the categorical exemption, no further
environmental review is necessary.
(e) ❑ Declared Emergency. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA
Guidelines § 15269(a))
(f) ❑ Statutory Exemption.
State Code section
i
number:
(g) ❑ Other. Explanation:
9. Reason why project was exempt: The project will be located within an existing
building and no off-site improvements are
needed.
10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
Telephone: (760) 346-0611
i
11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing.
12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption? Yes No
If yes, the date of the public hearing was: May 21, 2019
Signature: Date:
Title: S 'Oc,�'Z
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.
Notice of Exemption FORM"B"
i
I
D E S I G N
nrv:�6D.R9a.1 s9a
EMAIL:R ry ppQoc.w .
, wppwEe6:73')pD prrvA 3NpEE pR VE
#405
nw�M pe6Ewi,e�92217
El
TENANT
° o ,
IMPROVEMENT
� M --IT, FOR:
i -
15 PAN Spm
THE
VILLAGE
PUPH I
1
't-ease Space
Li\\ _ T. SF—Z' 111 PALM DESERT,CALIFORINA
Existing Parking "t
�� r,^.: '� -,., •y ,.�, �r VILLAGE
PUP
Y THE VILLAGE PUP
# Free D C a g og Da ycare&Overnight Boarding
o - Project Number: TV P.001
Date: 03/2012019
I I aD Scale: NOT TO SCALE
1 '_
O
CU
r r JOW 7 z SITE PLAN
AS-100
0
D E S I G N
'. PM:760.892.1 49a
EMAIL:RCORc ooQOc, w, M
400 RE.R:73700
e 8 aD5
'.. PALM DE9Cwr,c1 9 21 1
TENANT
IMPROVEMENT
FOR:
Ewa
THE
VILLAGE
PUP
PALM DESERT,CALIFORINA
VILLAGE
PUP
THE VILLAGE PUP
Cage free Dog Day—&0v 1h,eoardi,
Project Number: T V P.001
Date: 03/20/2019
Scale: NOT TO SCALE
Y�IIl�Y/YUtlWgrlG
SCHMATIC FLOOR
PLAN
Z
0
AS-101