HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 00-04 DETACHED ACCESSORY 2000 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
V. DATE: October 12, 2000
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No.
D. Planning Commission Minutes for Case No. ZOA 00-04
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 19, 2000
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. to second reading.
B. DISCUSSION:
1 . BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal
Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear
yards. Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and
those that did usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they
purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings
(bonus rooms) as an option in their developments. These buildings are proving
to be a popular item.
jWp\s,\zoa00-04. I
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
OCTOBER 12, 2000
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and
rear property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are
limited in size but they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter
to ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current
provisions for these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory
structures which are too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the
ordinance. The suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than
12,000 square feet to apply through a conditional use permit process for
accessory buildings in the required rear yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will
limit height to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be
setback from property lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in
height with minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds
of 100 square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted
with minimum setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of
ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet
are permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
height subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback
areas.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall
not be permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less
than 12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies
the lots at time of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers
would be advised in advance which lots would have these extra structures.
Ultimately ZORC decided that such a provision to treat new developments
W p\sn=oaoo oacci 2
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
OCTOBER 12, 2000
different from existing homes was unfair on its face and therefore the
provision is not in your draft ordinance.
Planning Commission considered this amendment at its September 19, 2000
meeting and on a 5-0 vote recommended approval as forwarded by ZORC (i.e.,
without a provision allowing new tract developers to identify lots at time of
map approval).
2. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further documentation is necessary.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
STEVE SMITH *PHLIP DRELL
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Review and Concur- Review and Concur:
RI HARD J. MILIERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER/RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Am
lwa\=,�...00-04x0 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th
day of October, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the
Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 as described above; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2016 has recommended
approval; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its action as described below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Council in this case.
2. That ZOA 00-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
ORDINANCE NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE.D. KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations." in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review .Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
MINUTES SUBJECT TO
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION " REVISION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
appropriate shade trees along the west side. Additional landscaping as
required by ARC would be required on the east elevation. Commissioner
Campbell also read that it would probably be necessary to remove the most
northerly parking stall at this location to accommodate the landscaping. Mr.
Alvarez felt that should be asked of the applicant but pointed out the planter
in question and explained that it had been reduced and showed up on the
revised site plan. That was because of the alignment of the driveway for
Village Center Drive.
Chairperson Beaty or)ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St. Charles Suite A in Palm Desert,
stated that he was in agreement with all the conditions and comments
made by staff. They added three planters as requested by ARC.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015, approving PP 00-18,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell recommended that the commission hear Public Hearing Item D before Item B since
they were directly related. Commission concurred.
D. Case No. ZOA 00-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for recommendation to City Council of approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings.
Mr. Smith explained that the zoning ordinance amendment before commission
related to detached accessory buildings in the rear yards of residential units.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000F T
; s REVISION
There was a moratorium in place, then an interim ordinance in place which
only allowed persons on lots of 40,000 square feet or more to apply for these
structures. That interim ordinance was still in place. After discussing this
issue, Zoning Ordinance Review Committee made a recommendation that
would create for permanent purposes an ordinance that allowed persons with
property of 12,000 square feet or more to apply. They had then separated out
standards for those requests. On lots of 40,000 square feet or more they
could go to a maximum of 18 feet in height with a 1 :1 setback and a
maximum coverage of 25% of the rear yard. With lots between 12,000 and
40,000 square feet, maximum height would be limited to 14 feet with the
same 25% limit and 1 :1 height to setback ratio. The proposed ordinance
would also provide for storage sheds of 100 square feet or less regardless of
lot size. Open non-habitable gazebo-like structures were permitted. ZORC
discussed subsection "E" which was highlighted on page two. Subsection E
did not show up in the draft resolution for the ordinance. They were looking
at creating an opportunity for new tracts of homes to be able to pre-identify
lots within the tract, but not on the perimeter of the tract where regardless of
the size of the lots, these detached structures would be acceptable. Ultimately
ZORC chose not to include that subsection feeling that they were precluding
existing residences from having it and treating new tracts in a different fashion
and didn't feel that was reasonable so it did not appear. If commission felt the
provision had merit, it could be added to the draft resolution. The proposed
amendment was a Class 5 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no
further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended that Planning
Commission recommend approval to City Council.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Finerty moved for approval, Commissioner Campbell seconded
it. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on this public hearing
process. It was publicly noticed for Planning Commission and then it would
be publicly noticed before City Council. Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Chairperson Beaty called for a vote.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
6
MINUTES SUBJECT t0
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ ; REVISION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016, recommending to City
Council approval of ZOA 00-04. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case No. CUP 00-12 - RALENE SHIMON, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,100
square foot 18 feet high detached accessory building in the
required rear yard (15 feet setback from rear property line) of the
property at 77-905 Delaware Place, APN 637-180-034.
Mr. Smith stated that the request was to permit a 2,100 square foot 18 foot
high accessory building in the rear yard of the property at 77-905 Delaware
Place. Plans were on display and copies were also provided in commission
packets. Mr. Smith explained that the main home on the site had been
previously approved through Architectural Review. It was his understanding
at this point in time building permits on that dwelling had not been taken out
from the Building Department. As noted previously, there was an urgency
ordinance in place which allowed persons possessing property of 40,000
square feet or more to make application. That was the process that this
applicant was going through. As noted in the review of the previous zoning
ordinance amendment, it would comply with the new ordinance as well,
subject to them moving the building. The building was currently sited 15 feet
from the side and 15 feet from the rear. The ordinance the commission just
recommended to the City Council would require minimum 18 feet from the
side and from the rear. He said there was plenty of room to accomplish that,
so staff's recommendation was approval of the conditional use permit subject
to it being relocated to 18 and 18. He noted that condition 7 was added to
the resolution which stated that they wanted to see some substantial headway
with the main dwelling on the property before the building permit was taken
out on this structure so that they could be assured that they weren't just left
with an accessory structure.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished
to address the commission. She spoke up from the audience and said no.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the commission's desire to have the
application comply with the new ordinance with the 18 foot setbacks, if that
would create a design issue for the applicant.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, BEATY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairp on
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 19, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
1. BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear yards.
Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and those that did
usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings (bonus
rooms) as an option.in their developments. These buildings are proving to be a popular
item.
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and rear
property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are limited in size but
they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter to
ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current provisions for
these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory structures which are
too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the ordinance. The
suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than 12,000 square feet to apply
through a conditional use permit process for accessory buildings in the required rear
yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will limit height
to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be setback from property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in height with
minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds of 100
square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted with minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet are
permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height
subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback areas.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall not be
permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less than
12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies the lots at time
of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers would be advised in
advance which lots would have these extra structures. Ultimately ZORC decided that
such a provision to treat new developments different from existing homes was unfair
on its face and therefore the provision is not in your draft ordinance. If Planning
Commission feels this provision has merit it can be added as subsection E and would
read as follows:
E. Notwithstanding the above provisions at the time of tentative tract
map approval, the Planning Commission may approve accessory
buildings in rear yards where said structures would not be visible
from the perimeter of said tract.
II. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and
no further documentation is necessary.
Ill. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Detached Accessory Buildings
provisions.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
Prepared by
t ve Smith
Planning Manager ! L
Reviewed and Approved bytniY
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
/tm
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
.25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
PLANNING COIOMISS1ON RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PI-mINING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Sects That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
i
25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildin s.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or use permit by Planning Commission and approval by A more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
rchitectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure
distance equal to its height. is setback from property line a
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
-2 75_W
Chapter 25.73 C 'he plan of the proposed parking area for the
development to which the parking is accessoryi the plan
PRECISE PLAN shall be drawn to an engineering scale of sufficient size
to clew l_v indicate the proposed development including
Sections: location.size,shape;design,curb cuts,fighting,drainage,
25.73.010 When required. paving,parking stalls,landscaping,and other features and
25.73.011 Contents. appurtenances of the proposed parking lot;
25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise D. The location,dimensions and method of improve-
plan, ment of all property to be dedicated to the public or to
25.73.013 Approval or rejection public utilities;
considerations. E. Examples of proposed architectural treatment in
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. the form of perspectives and elevations and such other data
25.73.015 Compliance required. as may be required by the planning commission, design
25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans. review board or environmental services director in evaluat-
25.73.017 Distinction from other precise ing the proposed development shall be required and become
plans an integral part of such a submittal;
25.73.018 Street frontage requirements. F. In all zones other than single-family residential or
25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan. for any use specifically permitted in said zones,or for any
25.73.020 Amendment to a precise plan. use for which a conditional use permit is required the
general location, area, and type of landscaping;
25.73.010 When required. G. General nature of the proposed use.(Ord 299(pan),
A. No person shall commence any use for which a 1982)
conditional use permit is required or any use not permitted
in either the R-1,RE zone, and no building permit shall 25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise
be issued for any structure to be used for or in conjunction plan•
with any such use,until a precise plan of design covering Any such precise plan of design may be rejected, ap-
the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and proved, modified and approved, or approved subject to
adopted as provided in this chapter. The precise plan of conditions-Any such precise plan of design after approval,
design may be filed and approved as a part of the condition- may be amended, in the same manner as a precise plan
al use permit procedure. of design is first approved under this chapter. (Ord. 299
B. Notwithstanding any provision of the Uniform (part), 1982) -
Building Code, no grading permit shall be issued for the
grading or excavation of any land,until a precise plan of 25.73.013 Approval or rejection
design,tentative tract trap,or tentative parcel map covering considerations.
the property proposed to be graded or excavated has been A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of
approved and adopted as provided in this chapter. design,consideration shall be given and restrictions shall
This subsection shall not apply to the grading or excava- be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size
tion required in connection with: and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning
1. The construction of a swimming pool on property and use of the subject property and the surrounding proper-
in the residential zone; or ty,to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject
2. The movement of less than fifty cubic yards of earth; property, but subject to the same degree of protection of
or adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal
3. The grading of any parcel of property outside of circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this
the hillside overlay zone so as to improve the land for chapter.The standard restrictions imposed in the various
emergency drainage purposes. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982) zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned
in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions
25.73.011 Contents. necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial
Such precise plan of design shall specify and include: depreciation of property values in the vicinity,unreasonable
A. The location,size,height,and type of all structures interference with the use and enjoyment of
including signs, walls and fences;
B. The location,size and dimensions of all yards and
setbacks and all spaces between structures;
460-3 (Palm Desert 7-95)
73.013
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for 25.73.016 Continuance of existing pla n!_
lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, Any precise plan previously approved and in effect,
health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circum- shall remain in effect regardless of any changes to
stances"are intended to refer to the case ofapermitted zoning regulations subsequently adopted unless the
case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded precise plans are made null and void oramended at the
by property in the same zone as the lot in question. time of adoption.(Ord.299(part),1982)
B. If the proposed precise plan of design would
substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity 25.73.017 Distinction from other precise plans.
or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoy- The precise plans of design referred to in this chap-
ment of property in the vicinity by the occupants ter are not to be confused with or considered to be
thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the precise plans as referred to in theGoventmentCodeof
public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such the state.(Ord.299(part),1982)
plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or condi-
tioned before adoption as to remove said objections. 25.73.018 Street frontage requirements.
C. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, No building or other structure to he used for any
the planning commission and city council, as the case business or commercial purpose shall hereafter be
may be, may also consider and take into account the erected unless the frontage of the lot,or parcel of land
exterior architectural design,general exterior appear- upon which such building or structure is erected,abuts
ances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials on one side of a public street between two intersecting
and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other streets and unless the front of such building orstructure
physical characteristics including location and type of abuts on and faces such public street;provided, how-
public utility facilities, and if it is found that the pro- ever, that when practical difficulties or unnecessary
posed precise plan of design, hardships result through the strict and literal interpre-
P P P gn, including the considers- tation and enforcement of the provisions of this chap-
re enumerated in this chapter would interfere with
the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise ter,the planning commission or city council may,upon
plan area,or with the existing or proposed use thereof, opmthe adoption a a precise plan of design for the upon
such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be such co of a particular lot es parcel of land and upon
such conditions as it may establish, expressly vary or
so modified or conditioned before approval as to re- waive the requirements of thissection.(Ord.299(part),
move the objections.(Ord.299(part),1982) 1982)
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. 25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan.
Aprecise plan of design may be approved subject to . A. Failure to utilize a precise plan within one year
the granting of a change of zone, a conditional use of its effective date(unless extended by action of the
permit,a variance or the approval of a final subdivision planning commission)will automatically void such pre-
map,and the planning commission or city council may cise plan. In the event construction work is involved,
require such a precise plan of design to be submitted such work must actually commence within the stated
prior to the granting or recommending of a zone period and be diligently pursued.If the city should find
change,variance or conditional use permit. (Ord.299 that there has been no construction of substantial char-
(part),1982) acter taken or if such construction should lapse for
more than six months,the precise plan shall be void.
25.73.015 Compliance required. B. Extension of time uptoa maximum one year may
No person shall violate or fail to comply with any be granted from the date of expiration of the precise
approved precise plan of design or any conditions or Plan by the planting commission when extenuating
provisions thereof nor shall a building permit be issued circumstances can be clearly shown by the applicanL
for any structure which would violate or fail to comply The request for same shall be submitted to the planning
P y commission in writing prior to the expiration date and
with any approved precise plan of design for the parcel shall clearly state the reasons why construction has not
or parcels on which such structure is to be located.In commenced.
the event any such permit is issued,it shall be null and C. The commission may grant additional time ex-
void and have no further effect.(Ord.299(part),1982) tensions up to a maximum of one year providing that
461
ORDINANCE NO. 948
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF l I'L CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25,56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
'WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
Section 1 . That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25.73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO. 948
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code, Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the. Palm Desert City Council this 8th day
of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Benson, Kelly, Spiegel, Crites
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferguson WA. CRITES,
ABSTAIN: None
BUF D Mayor
ATTEST:
RA ELLE KLASSEN,.Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPROV RM:
DAVID J. WIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
/ ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx suggested limiting the hours of deliveries.
The members voted unanimously to include in the O.P. zone as a conditional use
interior design showrooms.
Whereupon Member Campbell joined the meeting.
3. O.P. - Discussion on maximum length of buildings/ 1 to 1 setbackl height
ratio, etc.
Mr. Drell explained that there has been some concern about large buildings set
very close to the street, and indicated that the medical office building on the
southwest corner of Fred Waring and San Pascual has been described as a long,
monolithic structure.
Member Foxx disagreed that the building is a long, monolithic structure because it
has a break in the middle and undulation throughout the front elevation.
Members Bartlett and Vuksic also commented favorably on the building and felt that
there is no problem.
The consensus of the Committee was that this matter is the purview of the
Architectural Review Commission, and there is no need to develop a standard.
Whereupon Member Benson joined the meeting.
4. Discussion of accessory buildings in residential districts
Member Smith reported that there have been complaints about accessory buildings
being too close to the rear and side property lines, and noted that the code as
written currently allows a maximum 14-foot structure within five feet of the property
line.
Member Campbell suggested limiting the number of accessory structures to one per
lot.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19,2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx suggested limiting the hours of deliveries.
The members voted unanimously to include in the O.P. zone as a conditional use
interior design showrooms.
Whereupon Member Campbell joined the meeting.
3. O.P. - Discussion on maximum length of buildings/ 1 to 1 setback/ height
ratio, etc.
Mr. Drell explained that there has been some concern about large buildings set
very close to the street, and indicated that the medical office building on the
southwest corner of Fred Waring and San Pascual has been described as a long,
monolithic structure.
Member Foxx disagreed that the building is a long, monolithic structure because it
has a break in the middle and undulation throughout the front elevation.
Members Bartlett and Vuksic also commented favorably on the building and felt that .
there is no problem.
The consensus of the Committee was that this matter is the purview of the
Architectural Review Commission, and there is no need to develop a standard.
Whereupon Member Benson joined the meeting.
4. Discussion of accessory buildings in residential districts
Member Smith reported that there have been complaints about accessory buildings
being too close to the rear and side property lines, and noted that the code as
written currently allows a maximum 14-foot structure within five feet of the property
line.
Member Campbell suggested limiting the number of accessory structures to one per
lot.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx felt that it does not matter if there is one such structure in the front
yard and one in the back, as long as the one in the front does not encroach into the
setback.
Member Bartlett suggested limiting the height to six feet if the location is five feet
from the property line, and that the height be allowed to increase by one additional
foot for every additional foot the structure is away from the property line.
Member Vuksic believed no structures over six feet in height should be allowed
within the entire setback, with which Member Goodman agreed.
Mr. Drell suggested allowing a maximum height of eight feet for an enclosed
structure eight feet from the property line, and a maximum height of 10 feet for an
open structure 10 feet from the property line, and restricting the gross floor area to
120 square feet.
Member Goodman felt that the members should be given additional time to consider
this issue, and the other members concurred.
Member Foxx suggested that a moratorium be imposed in the interim, and the other
members concurred.
5. ADJOURNED: 4:15 PM
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
3
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Steve Smith,
Phil Drell
2. Accessory buildings in residential districts
Mr. Smith reported that the City Council imposed a moratorium on the issuance of
building permit for accessory structures within setbacks on residential properties,
and noted that the moratorium will expire tomorrow; so staff has recommended a
30-day extension. It has become evidence that there are two separate issues, i.e.,
the issue of 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots and the issue of very large (acre) lots.
The consensus of the Committee was to extend the moratorium.
Member Foxx commented that it is ridiculous to allow a habitable structure within
five feet of the property line, especially since a house is not allowed in that area.
He suggested that habitable accessory structures not be allowed within the setback,
but that a non-habitable structure such as a gazebo or pool changing room would
be okay.
Member O'Donnell agreed with Member Foxx and commented that the problem with
habitable accessory structures so close to the property line is that factors such as
noise creates an impact on neighbors' privacy.
Member Foxx felt that the current 50-foot rear yard setback for RE lots is excessive,
and stated that he would be comfortable with a 20-foot setback for primary
structures on these lots.
Mr. Drell explained that the idea of the semi-rural area is to have lots of open space
between houses.
Member Foxx felt that the definition of accessory structure should be clarified, and
preferred that a separate definition and special development standards be
developed for guest houses, with which Member O'Donnell concurred.
/ ZONING ORDINANCE RE-VIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
Mr. Smith asked that the Committee provide recommendations regarding: 1) the 50-
foot rear setback in the RE zone; 2) limiting the size of accessory structures in the
RE zone; and 3) a height limit for accessory structures in the RE zone.
Member Benson preferred to avoid the appearance of having two houses on a lot,
and felt that the height of accessory structures should be limited.
Mr. Drell noted that this issue could be addressed on a case by case basis by
allowing accessory structures within the setback via approval of a CUP.
Member Foxx felt that a definition of accessory structure in residential zones should
be developed.
Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the existing 50-foot rear yard setback in the RE
zone should be maintained.
Member Foxx felt that habitable accessory structures should not be allowed within
the required setback on small residential lots, and stressed the need for clear
definitions of accessory structures and guest houses.
The consensus of the Committee was to not allow guest houses within the required
setbacks on small residential lots.
Member Foxx stated that he would not be opposed to non-habitable accessory
structures, i.e., garden shed, at an eight-foot maximum height located eight feet
from the property line, and indicated that the allowed height could be increased by
one foot. Member Foxx expressed support for allowing open accessory structures,
i.e., gazebos, at a 10-foot height maximum located 10 feet from the property line.
Mr. Smith noted that consensus of the Committee to maintain the 50-foot rear yard
setback in the RE zone, and allowing accessory structures within that setback via
approval of a conditional use permit.
3. ADJOURNED: 5:00 PM
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
c:euucmcxn-nwroocsv.+riv¢oosi000.rrtry 2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTFE
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean . Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank
Goodman, Richard O'Donnell, Steve Smith, Phil Drell
1. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A. -
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow movable copy and
also presented a copy of a memo from the City's Traffic Engineer, Mark
Greenwood, expressing opposition to allowing movable copy signs insofar as it may
cause driver distraction leading to collisions and congestion.
Member Benson was concerned about how the meaning of information of interest
to the general public could be construed and indicated that she would be more
comfortable with a more specific definition. Member Benson indicated that she is
in agreement with the requirement that other such information be displayed in
conjunction with the time and temperature information.
Member Foxx suggested that such signage be approved for a specific period of
time, i.e., one year, on an experimental basis.
Nancy Cobb of Imperial Signs noted that the proposed changeable copy sign for the
A.G. Edwards building will cost approximately $30,000, so an experimental sign is
cost prohibitive.
Ms. Cobb reported that the applicant now wishes to display the stock market index
while the.market is open, and to display the time and temperature only when the
market is closed.
1
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
Member Benson indicated that she would not be in favr,r of such a display, and
would only be supportive if the time and temperature data were displayed
alternately with the stock market index data, with which Members Bartlett, Campbell .
and Foxx concurred.
Mr. Drell suggested deleting the proposed language restricting the copy to that
which is related to the business, and recommended that the City Attorney be
consulted regarding an appropriate definition of information of interest to the general
public.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will check with the City Attorney and report back to the
Committee.
2. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow accessory structures
via conditional use permit within rear yard setbacks of residential properties 12,000
square feet or greater.
Mr. Drell suggested that language be included providing •guidelines to maximum
building size, height and minimum setback.
Mr. Smith proposed language such that the Planning Commission may approve
tract development plot maps having accessory structures within the required rear
yard as long as the structures are not visible from public streets and are not located
in the perimeter of the tract. Members Benson, Campbell and O'Donnell indicated
they would be supportive as long as the minimum lot size was 12,000 square feet,
whereas Members Bartlett, Foxx and Goodman indicated they would be supportive
for any size lots.
Member Bartlett suggested that the height:setback ratio be one to one, as it is
proposed for gazebo structures, and the others agreed.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will rework the draft language and bring it back for
further consideration.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
AUGUST 30, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Frank Goodman, Bob Leo, Richard
O'Donnell, Steve Smith
1• Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
The Committee reviewed the revised language and concurred with the changes
except the inclusion of Subsection E allowing habitable bonus rooms on lots less
than 12,000 square feet in tract developments where the sites are identified at time
of map approval and excluded from perimeter lots.
The Committee recommended approval of the amendment without Subsection E.
The Committee determined that treating new tracts more liberally than existing.
homes would be unfair on its face.
2. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A.
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service. .
Mr. Smith advised the Committee that they City attorney is still reviewing the
question of how the City could define "signs of general public interest" and noted
that even if these signs could be defined, on-going enforcement would be difficult.
The Committee discussed the merits of the amendment further and directed staff
to table the matter.
1
r�--� City of Palm Desert
Council Agenda Request
Meeting of
To be considered under:
Consent Calendar_ Resolutions Ordinances_ New Business_
Old Business_ Informational Items_ Public Hearings Other_
2. Item Title: Consideration ,of approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
3. Financial: (Complete if applicable)
(a) Account/Projcct# (b) Amount Requested
(c) In the Current Budget? (c) Appropriation Required?
Approved by Director of Finance:
4. Submitted by:
5. Approvals: De City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. 970
y
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th
day of October, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the
Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 as described above; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2016 has recommended
approval; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project .
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 City:Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its action as described below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Council in this case.
2. That ZOA 00-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
,
ORDINANCE NO. 970 /r
G.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this 26th day of October , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL, CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
. ✓ ""'ALL ...
B RD A. CRITES, Mayor
TE
SHEILA R. IGAN, Clerk
City of Palm Desert, ifornia
I
i
2
i ORDINANCE NO. 970
i`
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25-56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
1 lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
I D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
))) allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
Ordinance No. 970
CITY OF PALM DESERT - U
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor And City Council
If. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
V. DATE: October 12, 2000
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 970
D. Planning Commission Minutes for Case No. ZOA 00-04
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 19, 2000 i
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 970 to second reading.
B. DISCUSSION:
1 . BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal
Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear
yards. Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and
those that did usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they
purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings
(bonus rooms) as an option in their developments. These buildings are proving
to be a popular item.
fflp.A..00-04.cc1
Ordinance No. 970
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
OCTOBER 12, 2000
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and
rear property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are
limited in size but they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter
to ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current
provisions for these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory
structures which are too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the
ordinance. The suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than
12,000 square feet to apply through a conditional use permit process for
accessory buildings in the required rear yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will
limit height to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be
setback from property lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in
height with minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds
of 100 square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted
with minimum setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of
ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet
are permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
height subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback
areas.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall
not be permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less
than 12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies
the lots at time of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers
would be advised in advance which lots would have these extra structures.
Ultimately ZORC decided that such a provision to treat new developments
Mpo sr\zoe00-04..) 2
``' Ordinance No. 970
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
OCTOBER 12, 2000
different from existing homes was unfair on its face and therefore the
provision is not in your draft ordinance.
Planning Commission considered this amendment at its September 19, 2000
meeting and on a 5-0 vote recommended approval as forwarded by ZORC (i.e.,
without a provision allowing new tract developers to identify lots at time of
map approval).
2. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further documentation is necessary.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
L LL
S / VE SMITH PH LIP DREQ C
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Review and Concur- Review and Concur:
Z- ,,,—
vo
RI HARD J. LKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER/RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
/tm
MEETIN8 DATE
❑ CONTINUED TO
%-PASSED TO 214D READING
(Wp\sr\zoa00-04.cc)
3
y
ORDINANCE NO. 970
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th
day of October, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the
Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 as described above; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2016 has recommended
approval; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project .
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 City Council did find
the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its action as described below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Council in this case.
2. That ZOA 00-04 as delineated in the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby ordained.
I
i
ORDINANCE NO. 970
f l
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm .Desert City I
Council, held on this 26th day of October , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, FERGUSON, KELLY, SPIEGEL, CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
BU#ORD A. CRITES, Mayor
TE
SHEILA R. IGAP, Clerk
City of Palm .Desert, 1fornia
i
2
ORDINANCE NO. 970
d�
a
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required_yard=shall not be subject
to this section. r'
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit .the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval,by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
` the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 5, 2000, continued from November 7, 2000, and
September 19, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of a resolution recommending to the City Council an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 58 et al, Off-Street Parking and
Loading.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
The city last updated the parking lot design sections of the zoning ordinance in 1990.
Over the past several years, the city has worked to develop parking lot landscape
requirements and standards which will provide attractive and shade-providing
landscaping in parking lots and adjacent areas.
The new standards and requirements are being presented to the Planning Commission
in three forms. The basic requirements have been put in a form which will be
recommended to the City Council as an amendment to the zoning text. The guidelines
for parking lot trees and design standards for parking lots are a more detailed form of
the basic requirements and will be adopted by resolutions of the Planning Commission.
The latter documents may need to be amended from time to time so that is the reason
for adopting them by resolution.
The objective of this update then, is to:
1 . Increase the landscape area within parking lots.
2. Increase the potential for successful growth of trees in parking lots.
3. Maintain the design efficiency of parking lots.
In May, 1998, ZORC considered this matter and staff undertook a study of vehicle
parking in the City Hall parking lot and found vehicles from fourteen and one half feet
to twenty-one feet long with the vast majority of being in the small to mid size range.
The amendment will reduce the regular stall dimension from nine feet by eighteen feet
long plus two feet of overhang to nine feet by sixteen feet six inches long plus two feet
of overhang lie: reducing length by one and one-half feet). Spaces adjacent to tree
planters around the perimeter of a parking lot would be permitted to be nine feet wide
by fifteen feet long plus two feet of overhang. Tree planters are located every third
parking space so effectively one-third of the perimeter parking lot spaces would be
shorter in depth.
The shorter spaces adjacent to tree planters are necessary to provide the larger tree
planter beds which are required in the design specifications.
j
I
CITY OF PALM DESERT
% DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Pla/ing Commission
DATE: December 5, 2000, continued from November 7, 2000, and
September 19, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of a resolution recommending to the City Council an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 58 at al, Off-Street Parking and
Loading.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
The city last updated the parking lot design sections of the zoning ordinance in 1990.
rJeLJ
Over the past several years, the city has worked to develop parking lot landscape
requirements and standards which will provide attractive and shade-providing
landscaping in parking lots and adjacent areas.
The new standards and requirements are being presented to the Planning Commission
in three forms. The basic requirements have been put in a form which will be
recommended to the City Council as an amendment to the zoning text. The guidelines
for parking lot trees and design standards for parking lots are a more detailed form of
the basic requirements and will be adopted by resolutions of the Planning Commission.
The latter documents may need to be amended from time to time so that is the reason
for adopting them by resolution.
The objective of this update then, is to:
1 . Increase the landscape area within parking lots.
2. Increase the potential for successful growth of trees in parking lots.
3. Maintain the design efficiency of parking lots.
In May, 1998, ZORC considered this matter and staff undertook a study of vehicle
parking in the City Hall parking lot and found vehicles from fourteen and one half feet
to twenty-one feet long with the vast majority of being in the small to mid size range.
The amendment will reduce the regular stall dimension from nine feet by eighteen feet
long plus two feet of overhang to nine feet by sixteen feet six inches long plus two feet
of overhang lie: reducing length by one and one-half feet). Spaces adjacent to tree
planters around the perimeter of a parking lot would be permitted to be nine feet wide
by fifteen feet long plus two feet of overhang. Tree planters are located every third
parking space so effectively one-third of the perimeter parking lot spaces would be
shorter in depth.
The shorter spaces adjacent to tree planters are necessary to provide the larger tree
planter beds which are required in the design specifications.
9
We are altering the jrrent compact space standards tv only be permitted in very
exceptional or unique circumstances. The compact spaces width will revert back to
nine feet but the depth will be flexible depending on the geometric circumstances.
Compact spaces would only be considered in parking lots with more than 100 spaces
and having large numbers of employees.
The amendments also take out thpexistingparking lot lighting section and replace it
with our recently adopted one (Ordinance No. 826).
The amendment will provide for Planning Commission to approve exceptions to these
standards.
Lastly, the amendment will define certain terms for use in this section.
ll. ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment represents an update to our current standards for landscaping
in parking lots. As well, we have cleaned up other matters lie, changed "Design Review
Commission" to "Architectural Review Commission").
Planning Commission Resolution No. 725 established detailed parking lot design
standards for various parking space layouts lie, 30, 45, 60-degree angle spaces). Staff
has updated these standards to be consistent with the changes made in this
amendment and that update is enclosed which will revise the current standards
approved under Resolution No. 725.
III. CEQA REVIEW
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption of purposes of CEQA and
no further documentation is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Off-Street Parking and Loading
provisions, adopt Resolution No. approving "Design Criteria and Specifications
for Parking Lot Trees" and adopting Planning Committee Resolution No.
approving a revision to Planning Commission Resolution No. 725 "Design Standards for
Off-Street Parking Facilities".
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
Prepared by ��1, ^C
Steve Smith,
�PI neni�ng�anager
Reviewed and Approved-b _ Y
Drel , Director of Community Development
2
We are altering the ,jrrent compact space standards tv only be permitted in very
exceptional or unique circumstances. The compact spaces width will revert back to
nine feet but the depth will be flexible depending on the geometric circumstances.
Compact spaces would only be considered in parking lots with more than 100 spaces
and having large numbers of employees.
The amendments also take out thQ_existing parking lot lighting section and replace it
with our recently adopted one (Ordinance No. 826).
The amendment will provide for Planning Commission to approve exceptions to these
standards.
Lastly, the amendment will define certain terms for use in this section.
II. ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment represents an update to our current standards for landscaping
in parking lots. As well, we have cleaned up other matters lie, changed "Design Review
Commission" to "Architectural Review Commission").
Planning Commission Resolution No. 725 established detailed parking lot design
standards for various parking space layouts lie, 30, 45, 60-degree angle spaces). Staff
has updated these standards to be consistent with the changes made in this
amendment and that update is enclosed which will revise the current standards
approved under Resolution No. 725.
III. CEQA REVIEW
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption of purposes of CEQA and
no further documentation is necessary.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Off-Street Parking and Loading
provisions, adopt Resolution No. approving "Design Criteria and Specifications
for Parking Lot Trees" and adopting Planning Committee Resolution No.
approving a revision to Planning Commission Resolution No. 725 "Design Standards for
Off-Street Parking Facilities".
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
Prepared by ell C�
Steve Smith, PI nning Nfanager
Reviewed and Appro
�el , Director of Community Development
2
I I T y 91 Ph M DESERI
73-5io FREI) WARINNG DRIVE
_ PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-O61 I
FAR: 760 341-7098
info@ palm-desera.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: September 21 , 2000
City of Palm Desert
Re: ZOA 00-04
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its meeting of September 19, 2000:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
ZOA 00-04 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2016, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
cCw'
PHILIP DRELL, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
io ,Eo o.a„no,on
I �
i I
I � I
I �
I I
d N
J
m I I
g;4
C-{{Cll y
C � O
U_
n m E d wl a c J
_ U
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ, BEATY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
.ABSTAIN: NONE
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairpe on
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Vecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
1
RECEIVED
PROOF OF PUBLICATION 'UC 0CTrhisi4patp(dtcj.T rk-s Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
GM CLERK'S OFFICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of
the County aforesaid; 1 am over the age of eighteen
years,and not a party to or interested in the No.6093
CITY OF PALM DESERT
above-entitled matter.1 am the principal clerk of a SE NO.NOTICE
printer o the, SE SUN PUBLISHING GI CASE W-04
Pi of DESERT I
NOTICE IS HEREBY GVEENN that a public hearial ngg
COMPANY a news a er of eneral circulation, will be held before the Palm Desert City Counpcil
P P g to consider an amendment to the Munlci
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings.
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been SAID public hearingg will beheld on Thumday,Oc-
tober 12,2000.at A:00 p.m.in the Council ham-
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the ben at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred ,
Superior Court of the County of Riverside State of waving Drive. Palm Desert, California, at which
P h' , time and place all interested persons are invited
California Under the date of March 24, 1988.Case to attend and be heard. written comments con-
ceming all Items covered by this public hearing
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the notice shall be accepted up to the date of the ,
hearing. Information concerning the provused
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller 'project and/or negative declaration is available for
than non pariel,has been published in each regular ment at tw in he abohe ve addmw betwnt of een ours of
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an If y a.m. end e t proposed Monday through Friday.
court,
y If you challenge the proposed actions m court,
you may be limited to raising only those Issues
supplement thereof on the fallowing dates,to wit: you or someone else raised at the public hearing
desaribetl ine this notice, or in written correspon-
Se September 29th _ __ dense delivered to the City Council at,or prior to.
-
P - the public hearing. Acting
RACHELL Clerk
C'K of Palm Dese ,City
PUB: September 29,City of
All in the year 2000
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
2nd
Dated at Palm Springs,California this day
October
of ,2000
Signature
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
appropriate shade trees along the west side. Additional landscaping as
required by ARC would be required on the east elevation. Commissioner
Campbell also read that it would probably be necessary to remove the most
northerly parking stall at this location to accommodate the landscaping. Mr.
Alvarez felt that should be asked of the applicant but pointed out the planter
in question and explained that it had been reduced and showed up on the
revised site plan. That was because of the alignment of the driveway for
Village Center Drive.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant_ to
address the commission.
MR. ROBERT RICCIARDI, 75-090 St-Charles Suite A in Palm Desert,
stated that he was in agreement with all the conditions and comments
made by staff. They added three planters as requested by ARC.
Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION
to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Beaty asked for commission comments or action.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015, approving PP 00-18,
subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Drell recommended that the commission hear Public Hearing Item D before Item B since
they were directly related. Commission concurred.
D. Case No. ZOA 00-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for recommendation to City Council of approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings.
Mr. Smith explained that the zoning ordinance amendment before commission
related to detached accessory buildings in the rear yards of residential units.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
There was a moratorium in place, then an interim ordinance in place which
only allowed persons on lots of 40,000 square feet or more to apply for these
structures. That interim ordinance was still in place. After discussing this
issue, Zoning Ordinance Review Committee made a. recommendation that
would create for permanent purposes an ordinance that allowed persons with
property of 12,000 square feet or more to apply. They had then separated out
standards for those requests. On lots of 40,000 square feet or more they
could go to a maximum of 18 feet in height with a 1 :1 setback and a
maximum coverage of 25% of the rear yard. With lots between 12,000 and
40,000 square feet, maximum height would be limited to 14 feet with the
same 25% limit and 1 :1 height to setback ratio. The proposed ordinance
would also provide for storage sheds of 100 square feet or less regardless of
lot size. Open non-habitable gazebo-like structures were permitted. ZORC
discussed subsection "E" which was highlighted on page two. Subsection E
did not show up in the draft resolution for the ordinance. They were looking
at creating an opportunity for new tracts of homes to be able to pre-identify
lots within the tract, but not on the perimeter of the tract where.regardless of
the size of the lots, these detached structures would be acceptable. Ultimately
ZORC chose not to include that subsection feeling that they were precluding
existing residences from having it and treating new tracts in a different fashion
and didn't feel that was reasonable so it did not appear. If commission felt the
provision had merit, it could be added to the draft resolution. The proposed
amendment was a Class 5 categorical exemption for CEQA purposes and no .
further documentation was necessary. Staff recommended that Planning
Commission recommend approval to City Council.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Finerty moved for approval, Commissioner Campbell seconded
it. Commissioner Jonathan asked for clarification on this public hearing
process. It was publicly noticed for Planning Commission and then it would
be publicly noticed before City Council. Mr. Smith said that was correct.
Chairperson Beaty called for a vote.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016, recommending to City
Council approval of ZOA 00-04. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Case No. CUP 00-12 - RALENE SHIMON, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 2,100
square foot 18 feet high detached accessory building in the
required rear yard (15 feet setback from rear property line) of the
property at 77-905 Delaware Place, APN 637-180-034.
Mr. Smith stated that the request was to permit a 2,100 square,foot 18 foot
high accessory building in the rear yard of.the property at 77-905 Delaware
Place. Plans were on display and copies were also provided in commission
packets. Mr. Smith explained that the main home on the site had been
previously approved through Architectural Review. It was his understanding
at this point in time building permits on that dwelling had not been taken out
from the Building Department. As noted .previously, there was an urgency
ordinance in place which allowed persons 'possessing property of 40,000
square feet or more to make application. That was the process that this
applicant was going through. As noted in the review of the previous zoning
ordinance amendment, it would comply with the new ordinance as well,
subject to them moving the building. The building was currently sited 15 feet
from the side and 15 feet from the rear. The ordinance the commission just
recommended to the City Council would require minimum 18 feet from the
side and from the rear. He said there was plenty of room to accomplish that,
so staff's recommendation was approval of the conditional use permit subject
to it being relocated to 18 and 18. He noted that condition 7 was added to
the resolution which stated that they wanted to see some substantial headway
with the main dwelling on the property before the building permit was taken
out on this structure so that they could be assured that they weren't just left
with an accessory structure.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished
to address the commission. She spoke up from the audience and said no.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if it was the commission's desire to have the
application comply with the new ordinance with the 18 foot setbacks, if that
would create a design issue for the applicant.
7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 19, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear yards.
Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and those that did
usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings (bonus
rooms) as an option in their developments. These buildings are proving to be a popular
item.
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and rear
property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are limited in size but
they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter to
ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current provisions for
these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory structures which are
too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the ordinance. The
suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than 12,000 square feet to apply
through a conditional use permit process for accessory buildings in the required rear
yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will limit height
to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be setback from property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in height with
minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPT EMBER 19, 2000
C)VQQJ
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds of 100
LJiTfWWWWWN square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted with minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet are
permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height
subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback aregxs�
a-- s�chi-ram,
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall not be
permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less than
12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies the lots at time
of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers would be advised in
advance which lots would have these extra structures. Ultimately ZORC decided that
such a provision to treat new developments different from existing homes was unfair
on its face and therefore the provision is not in your draft ordinance. If Planning
Commission feels this provision has merit it can be added as subsection E and would
read as follows:
E. Notwithstanding the above provisions at the time of tentative tract
map approval, the Planning Commission may approve accessory
buildings in rear yards where said structures would not be visible
from the perimeter of said tract.
II. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and
no further documentation is necessary.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Detached Accessory Buildings
provisions.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
Prepared by
teve Smith
Planning Manager
Reviewed and Approved by
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
/tm
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
25.73.010
Chapter 25.73 C. The plan of the proposed parking area for the
development to which the parking is accessory; the plan
PRECISE PLAN shall be drawn to an engineering scale of sufficient size
to clearly indicate the proposed development including
Sections: location,size,shape,design,curb cuts,lighting,drainage,
25.73.010 When required. paving,parking stalls,landscaping,and other features and
25.73.011 Contents. appurtenances of the proposed parking lot;
25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise D. The location,dimensions and method of improve-
plan, ment of all property to be dedicated to the public or to
25.73.013 Approval or rejection public utilities;
considerations. E. Examples of proposed architectural treatment in
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. the form of perspectives and elevations and such other data
25.73.015 Compliance required. as may be required by the planning commission, design
25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans. review board or environmental services director in evaluat-
25.73.017 Distinction from other precise ing the proposed development shall be required and become
plans, an integral part of such a submittal;
25.73.018 Street frontage requirements. F. In all zones other than single-family residential or
25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan. for any use specifically permitted in said zones,or for any
25.73.020 Amendment to a precise plan. use for which a conditional use permit is required the
general location, area, and type of landscaping;
25.73.010 When required. G. General nature of the proposed use.(Ord.299(part),
A. No person shall commence any use for which a 1982)
conditional use permit is required or any use not permitted
in either the R-1, RE zone, and no building permit shall 25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise
be issued for any structure to be used for or in conjunction plan. `
with any such use,until a precise plan of design covering Any such precise plan of design may be rejected, ap-
the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and proved, modified and approved, or approved subject to
adopted as provided in this chapter. The precise plan of conditions.Any such precise plan of design after approval,
design may be filed and approved as a part of the condition- may be amended, in the same manner as a precise plan
al use permit procedure. of design is first approved under this chapter. (Ord. 299
B. Notwithstanding any provision of the Uniform (part), 1982)
Building Code, no grading permit shall be issued for the
grading or excavation of any land,until a precise plan of 25.73.013 Approval or rejection
design,tentative tract map,or tentative parcel map covering considerations.
the property proposed to be graded or excavated has been A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of
approved and adopted as provided in this chapter. design,consideration shall be given and restrictions shall
This subsection shall not apply to the grading or excava- be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size
tion required in connection with: and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning
1. The construction of a swimming pool on property and use of the subject property and the surrounding proper-
in the residential zone; or ty,to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject
2. The movement of less than fifty cubic yards of earth; property,but subject to the same degree of protection of
or adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal
3. The grading of any parcel of property outside of circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this
the hillside overlay zone so as to improve the land for chapter.The standard restrictions imposed in the various
emergency drainage purposes. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982) zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned
in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions
, 25.73.011 Contents. necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial
Such precise plan of design shall specify and include: depreciation of property values in the vicinity,unreasonable
A. The location,size,height,and type of all structures interference with the use and enjoyment of
including signs, walls and fences;
B. The location,size and dimensions of all yards and
setbacks and all spaces between structures;
460-3 - (Pdm Dews 7-95)
1
fr
25.73.013
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for 25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans.
lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, Any precise plan previously approved and in effect,
health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circum- shall remain in effect regardless of any changes to
stances"are intended to refer to the case of a permitted zoning regulations subsequently adopted unless the
case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded precise plans are made null and void or amended at the
by property in the same zone as the lot in question. time of adoption.(Ord.299(part),1982)
B. If the proposed precise plan of design would
substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity 25.73.017 Distinction from other precise plans.
or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoy- The precise plans of design referred to in this chap-
ment of property in the vicinity by the occupants ter are not to be confused with or considered to be
thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the precise plans as referred to in the Government Code of
public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such the state.(Ord.299(part),1982)
plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or condi-
tioned before adoption as to remove said objections. 25.73.018 Street frontage requirements.
C In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, No building or other structure to be used for any
the planning commission and city council,as the case business or commercial purpose shall hereafter be
may be, may also consider and take into account the erected unless the frontage of the lot,or parcel of land
s exterior architectural design,general exterior appear- upon which such building or structure is erected,abuts
ances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials on one side of a public street between two intersecting
and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other streets and unless the front of such building or structure
physical characteristics including location and type of abuts on and faces such public street; provided,how-
public utility facilities, and if it is found that the pro- ever, that when practical difficulties or unnecessary
posed precise plan of design including the considers- hardships result through the strict and literal interpre-
tation and enforcement of the provisions of this chap-
tions enumerated in this chapter would interfere with ter,the planning commission or city council may,upon
:i the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise the adoption of a precise plan of design for the devel-
'� plan area,or with the existing or proposed use thereof, opment of a particular lot or parcel of land and upon
such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be such conditions as it may establish, expressly vary or
so modified or conditioned before approval as to re- waive the requirements of this section.(Ord.299(part),
move the objections.(Ord.299(part),1982) 1982)
' 25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. 25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan.
s A precise plan of design may be approved subject to A. Failure to utilize a precise plan within one year
s the granting of a change of zone, a conditional use of its effective date(unless extended by action of the
permit,a variance or the approval of a final subdivision planning commission)will automaticallyvoid such pre-
s map,and the planning commission or city council may cise plan. In the event construction work is involved,
require such a precise plan of design to be submitted such work must actually commence within the stated
prior to the granting or recommending of a zone period and be diligently pursued.Ifthe city should find
change,variance or conditional use permit. (Ord.299 that there has been no construction of substantial char-
(part),1982) acter taken or if such construction should lapse for
more than six months,the precise plan shall be void.
25.73.015 Compliance required. B. Extension of time uptoa maximum one yearmay
No person shall violate or fail to comply with any be granted from the date of expiration of the precise
plan by the planning commission when extenuating
approved precise plan of design or any conditions or circumstances can be clearly shown by the applicant.
provisions thereof nor shall a building permit be issued The request for same shall be submitted to the planning
for any structure which would violate or fail to comply commission in writing prior to the expiration date and
J with any approved precise plan of design for the parcel shall clearly state the reasons why construction has not
i or parcels on which such structure is to be located.In commenced.
the event any such permit is issued,it shall be null and C. The commission may grant additional time ex-
void and have no further effect(Ord.299(part),1982) tensions up to a maximum of one year providing that
,^ I
461
A
�1
ORDINANCE NO. 948
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
Section 1 . That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required .
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25.73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO. 948
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code, Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of.the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day
of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Benson, Kelly, Spiegel, Crites
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferguson
ABSTAIN: None
BUF D A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RA ELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPROV RM:
DAVID J. EKWIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx suggested limiting the hours of deliveries.
The members voted unanimously to include in the O.P. zone as a conditional use
interior design showrooms.
Whereupon Member Campbell joined the meeting.
3. O.P. - Discussion on maximum length of buildings/ 1 to 1 setback/ height
ratio, etc.
Mr. Drell explained that there has been some concern about large buildings set
very close to the street, and indicated that the medical office building on the
southwest corner of Fred Waring and San Pascual has been described as a long,
monolithic structure.
Member Foxx disagreed that the building is a long, monolithic structure because it
has a break in the middle and undulation throughout the front elevation.
Members Bartlett and Vuksic also commented favorably on the building and felt that
there is no problem.
The consensus of the Committee was that this matter is the purview of the
Architectural Review Commission, and there is no need to develop a standard.
Whereupon Member Benson joined the meeting.
4. Discussion of accessory buildings in residential districts
Member Smith reported that there have been complaints about accessory buildings
being too close to the rear and side property lines, and noted that the code as
written currently allows a maximum 14-foot structure within five feet of the property
line.
Member Campbell suggested limiting the number of accessory structures to one per
lot.
2
f
/ ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx felt that it does not matter if there is one such structure in the front
yard and one in the back, as long as the one in the front does not encroach into the
setback.
Member Bartlett suggested limiting the height to six feet if the location is five feet
from the property line, and that the height be allowed to increase by one additional
foot for every additional foot the structure is away from the property line.
Member Vuksic believed no structures over six feet in height should be allowed
within the entire setback, with which Member Goodman agreed.
Mr. Drell suggested allowing a maximum height of eight feet for an enclosed
structure eight feet from the property line, and a maximum height of 10 feet for an
open structure 10 feet from the property line, and restricting the gross floor area to
120 square feet.
Member Goodman felt that the members should be given additional time to consider
this issue, and the other members concurred.
Member Foxx suggested that a moratorium be imposed in the interim, and the other
members concurred.
5. ADJOURNED: 4:15 PM
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
3
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Steve Smith,
Phil Drell
2. Accessory buildings in residential districts
Mr. Smith reported that the City Council imposed a moratorium on the issuance of
building permit for accessory structures within setbacks on residential properties,
and noted that the moratorium will expire tomorrow; so staff has recommended a
30-day extension. It has become evidence that there are two separate issues, i.e.,
the issue of 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots and the issue of very large (acre) lots.
The consensus of the Committee was to extend the moratorium.
Member Foxx commented that it is ridiculous to allow a habitable structure within
five feet of the property line, especially since a house is not allowed in that area.
He suggested that habitable accessory structures not be allowed within the setback,
but that a non-habitable structure such as a gazebo or pool changing room would
be okay.
Member O'Donnell agreed with Member Foxx and commented that the problem with
habitable accessory structures so close to the property line is that factors such as
noise creates an impact on neighbors' privacy.
Member Foxx felt that the current 50-foot rear yard setback for RE lots is excessive,
and stated that he would be comfortable with a 20-foot setback for primary
structures on these lots.
Mr. Drell explained that the idea of the semi-rural area is to have lots of open space
between houses.
Member Foxx felt that the definition of accessory structure should be clarified, and
preferred that a separate definition and special development standards be
developed for guest houses, with which Member O'Donnell concurred.
1
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
Mr. Smith asked that the Committee provide recommendations regarding: 1)the 50-
foot rear setback in the RE zone; 2) limiting the size of accessory structures in the
RE zone; and 3) a height limit for accessory structures in the RE zone.
Member Benson preferred to avoid the appearance of having two houses on a lot,
and felt that the height of accessory structures should be limited.
Mr. Drell noted that this issue could be addressed on a case by case basis by
allowing accessory structures within the setback via approval of a CUP.
Member Foxx felt that a definition of accessory structure in residential zones should
be developed.
Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the existing 50-foot rear yard setback in the RE
zone should be maintained.
Member Foxx felt that habitable accessory structures should not be allowed within
the required setback on small residential lots, and stressed the need for clear
definitions of accessory structures and guest houses.
The consensus of the Committee was to not allow guest houses within the required
setbacks on small residential lots. '
Member Foxx stated that he would not be opposed to non-habitable accessory
structures, i.e., garden shed, at an eight-foot maximum height located eight feet
from the property line, and indicated that the allowed height could be increased by
one foot. Member Foxx expressed support for allowing open accessory structures,
i.e., gazebos, at a 10-foot height maximum located 10 feet from the property line.
Mr. Smith noted that consensus of the Committee to maintain the 50-foot rear yard
setback in the RE zone, and allowing accessory structures within that setback via
approval of a conditional use permit.
3. ADJOURNED: 5:00 PM
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
G.TLAN GWMCM-1\"DOCS\MI M51M MM 2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
*k********kk**k**fr******1r***********k1r**#****************k***********#Yrkk***k*******k#******kkk*****
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank
Goodman, Richard O'Donnell, Steve Smith, Phil Drell
1. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A. -
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow movable copy and
also presented a copy of a memo from the City's Traffic Engineer, Mark
Greenwood, expressing opposition to allowing movable copy signs insofar as it may
cause driver distraction leading to collisions and congestion.
Member Benson was concerned about how the meaning of information of interest
to the general public could be construed and indicated that she would be more
comfortable with a more specific definition. Member Benson indicated that she is
in agreement with the requirement that other such information be displayed in
conjunction with the time and temperature information.
Member Foxx suggested that such signage be approved for a specific period of
time, i.e., one year, on an experimental basis.
Nancy Cobb of Imperial Signs noted that the proposed changeable copy sign for the
A.G. Edwards building will cost approximately $30,000, so an experimental sign is
cost prohibitive.
Ms. Cobb reported that the applicant now wishes to display the stock market index
while the market is open, and to display the time and temperature only when the
market is closed.
1
/ ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
/// JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
Member Benson indicated that she would not be in favor of such a display, and
would only be supportive if the time and temperature data were displayed
alternately with the stock market index data, with which Members Bartlett, Campbell
and Foxx concurred.
Mr. Drell suggested deleting the proposed language restricting the copy to that
which is related to the business, and recommended that the City Attorney be
consulted regarding an appropriate definition of information of interest to the general
public.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will check with the City Attorney and report back to the
Committee.
2. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow accessory structures
via conditional use permit within rear yard setbacks of residential properties 12,000
square feet or greater.
Mr. Drell suggested that language be included providing guidelines to maximum
building size, height and minimum setback.
Mr. Smith proposed language such that the Planning Commission may approve
tract development plot maps having accessory structures within the required rear
yard as long as the structures are not visible from public streets and are not located
in the perimeter of the tract. Members Benson, Campbell and O'Donnell indicated
they would be supportive as long as the minimum lot size was 12,000 square feet,
whereas Members Bartlett, Foxx and Goodman indicated they would be supportive
for any size lots.
Member Bartlett suggested that the height:setback ratio be one to one, as it is
proposed for gazebo structures, and the others agreed.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will rework the draft language and bring it back for
further consideration.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
AUGUST 30, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Frank Goodman, Bob Leo, Richard
O'Donnell, Steve Smith
1. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
The Committee reviewed the revised language and concurred with the changes
except the inclusion of Subsection E allowing habitable bonus rooms on lots less
than 12,000 square feet in tract developments where the sites are identified at time
of map approval and excluded from perimeter lots.
The Committee recommended approval of the amendment without Subsection E.
The Committee determined that treating new tracts more liberally than existing
homes would be unfair on its face.
2. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A.
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service.
Mr. Smith advised the Committee that they City attorney is still reviewing the
question of how the City could define "signs of general public interest" and noted
that even if these signs could be defined, on-going enforcement would be difficult.
The Committee discussed the merits of the amendment further and directed staff
to table the matter.
1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 19, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The previous code provision allowed for detached accessory buildings in rear yards.
Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and those that did
usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings (bonus
rooms) as an option in their developments. These buildings are proving to be a popular
item.
The code allowed these structures to be located within five feet of side and rear
property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are limited in size but
they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures, staff took the matter to
ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current provisions for
these buildings were far too liberal. The code allowed accessory structures which are
too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At subsequent ZORC meetings it arrived at a consensus to amend the ordinance. The
suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than 12,000 square feet to apply
through a conditional use permit process for accessory buildings in the required rear
yard.
Standards for lots between 12,000 square feet and 40,000 square feet will limit height
to 14 feet, coverage to 25% of the required rear yard and be setback from property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more the standards change to 18 feet in height with
minimum setbacks from property lines equal to building height.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
On lots less than 12,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds of 100
square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted with minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of ARC.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet are
permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height
subject to approval by ARC.
ZORC felt that habitable structures did not generally belong in the setback areas.
On lots less than 12,000 square feet, habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall not be
permitted in the required rear or side yard.
ZORC discussed at length the merits of allowing bonus rooms on lots of less than
12,000 square feet in new tract projects where the developer identifies the lots at time
of map approval and only on non-perimeter lots. Purchasers would be advised in
advance which lots would have these extra structures. Ultimately ZORC decided that
such a provision to treat new developments different from existing homes was unfair
on its face and therefore the provision is not in your draft ordinance. If Planning
Commission feels this provision has merit it can be added as subsection E and would
read as follows:
E. Notwithstanding the above provisions at the time of tentative tract
map approval, the Planning Commission may approve accessory
buildings in rear yards where said structures would not be visible
from the perimeter of said tract.
11. CEQA REVIEW:
The proposed amendment is a Class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and
no further documentation is necessary.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend the Detached Accessory Buildings
provisions.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
Prepared by
t ve Smith
Planning Manager
Reviewed and Approved by ,, ink
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
/tm
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of September, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an
amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; 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 to exist to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans; and
3. That the Zoning Ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
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 Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached
Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Chapter 25.56.280.
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 19th day of September, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be subject
to this section.
B. On lots having 12,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a conditional
use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Said detached accessory building shall not exceed one story or 14 feet in height and may
not occupy more than 25% of the required rear yard and shall be set back from the property
lines a distance equal to its height.
On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more, the maximum height
shall be one story and 18 feet provided the structure is setback from property line a
distance equal to its height.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013 "Approval
or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 12,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of floor
area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of
eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of
building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
25.73.010
Chapter 25.73 C. The plan of the proposed parking area for the
development to which the parking is accessory; the plan
PRECISE PLAN shall be drawn to an engineering scale of sufficient size
to clearly indicate the proposed development including
Sections: location,size,shape,design,curb cuts,lighting,drainage,
25.73.010 When required. paving,parking stalls,landscaping,and other features and
25.73.011 Contents. appurtenances of the proposed parking lot;
25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise D. The location,dimensions and method of improve-
plan, ment of all property to be dedicated to the public or to
25.73.013 Approval or rejection public utilities;
considerations. E. Examples of proposed architectural treatment in
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. the form of perspectives and elevations and such other data
25.73.015 Compliance required. as may be required by the planning commission, design
25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans. review board or environmental services director in evaluat-
25.73.017 Distinction from other precise ing the proposed development shall be required and become
plans, an integral part of such a submittal;
25.73.018 Street frontage requirements. F. In all zones other than single-family residential or
25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan. for any use specifically permitted in said zones,or for any
25.73.020 Amendment to a precise plan. use for which a conditional use permit is required the
general location, area, and type of landscaping;
25.73.010 When required. G. General nature of the proposed use.(Ord 299(part),
A. No person shall commence any use for which a 1982)
conditional use permit is required or any use not permitted
in either the R-1,RE zone, and no building permit shall 25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise
be issued for any structure to be used for or in conjunction plan.
with any such use,until a precise plan of design covering Any such precise plan of design may be rejected, ap-
the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and proved, modified and approved, or approved subject to
adopted as provided in this chapter. The precise plan of conditions.Any such precise plan of design after approval,
design may be filed and approved as a part of the condition- may be amended, in the same manner as a precise plan
al use permit procedure. of design is first approved under this chapter. (Ord. 299
B. Notwithstanding any provision of the Uniform (part), 1982)
Building Code, no grading permit shall be issued for the
grading or excavation of any land,until a precise plan of 25.73.013 Approval or rejection
design,tentative tract map,or tentative parcel map covering considerations.
the property proposed to be graded or excavated has been A. In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of
approved and adopted as provided in this chapter. design,consideration shall be given and restrictions shall
This subsection shall not apply to the grading or excava- be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size
Lion required in connection with: and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning
1. The construction of a swimming pool on property and use of the subject property and the surrounding proper-
in the residential zone; or ty,to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject
2. The movement of less than fifty cubic yards of earth; property,but subject to the same degree of protection of
or adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal
I 3. The grading of any parcel of property outside of circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this
the hillside overlay zone so as to improve the land for chapter.The standard restrictions imposed in the various
emergency drainage purposes. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982) zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned
in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions
! 25.73.011 Contents. necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial
Such precise plan of design shall specify and include: depreciation of property values in the vicinity,unreasonable
! A. The location,size,height,and type of all structures interference with the use and enjoyment of
! including signs, walls and fences;
B. The location,size and dimensions of all yards and
! setbacks and all spaces between structures;
! 460-3
(Palm Drsert 7-95)
!
!
r�
25.73.013
:b
ti property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for 25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans.
s lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, Any precise plan previously approved and in effect,
health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circum- shall remain in effect regardless of any changes to
stances"are intended to refer to the case of a permitted zoning regulations subsequently adopted unless the
case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded precise plans are made null and void or amended at the
by property in the same zone as the lot in question. time of adoption.(Ord.299(part),1982)
B. If the proposed precise plan of design would
2� substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity 25.73.017 Distinction from other precise plans.
e or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoy- The precise plans of design referred to in this chap-
ment of property in the vicinity by the occupants ter are not to be confused with or considered to be
-! thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the precise plans as referred to in the Government Code of
public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such the state.(Ord.299(part),1982)
plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or condi-
tioned before adoption as to remove said objections. 25.73.018 Street frontage requirements.
C. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, No building or other structure to be used for any
the planning commission and city council,as the case business or commercial purpose shall hereafter be
may be, may also consider and take into account the erected unless the frontage of the lot,or parcel of land
.s exterior architectural design,genera]exterior appear- upon which such building or structure is erected,abuts
on one side of a public street between two intersecting
ances, landscape, color, texture of surface materials
w+ and exterior construction shape and bulk and other streets and unless the front of such building or structure
•+ abuts physical characteristics including location and type of th
at
and faces such public street; provided,how-
public utility facilities,and if it is found that the pro- ever, that when practical difficulties or unnecessary
posed precise plan of design,including the considera- hardships result through the strict and literal his ch re-
ration and enforcement of the provisions of this chap-
tions enumerated in this chapter would interfere with ter,the planning commission or city council may,upon
the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise the adoption of a precise plan of design for the devel-
plan area,or with the existing or proposed use thereof, opment of a particular lot or parcel of land and upon
such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be such conditions as it may establish, expressly vary or
so modified or conditioned before approval as to re- waive the requirements of this section.(Ord.299(part),
move the objections.(Ord.299(part),1982) 1982)
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. 25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan.
A precise plan of design may be approved subject to A. Failure to utilize a precise plan within one year
the granting of a change of zone, a conditional use of its effective date (unless extended by action of the
permit,a variance or the approval of a final subdivision planning commission)will automatically void such pre-
map,and the planning commission or city council may cise plan. In the event construction work is involved,
require such a precise plan of design to be submitted such work must actually commence within the stated
prior to the granting or recommending of a zone period and be diligently pursued.If the city should fmd
change,variance or conditional use permit. (Ord.299 that there has been no construction of substantial char-
(part),1982) acter taken or if such construction should lapse for
more than six months,the precise plan shall be void.
B. Extension of time up to a maximum one year may
25.73.015 Compliance required. be granted from the date of expiration of the precise
No person shall violate or fail to comply with any plan by the planning commission when extenuating
approved precise plan of design or any conditions or circumstances can be clearly shown by the applicant.
provisions thereof nor shall a building permit be issued The request for same shall be submitted to the planning
for any structure which would violate or fail to comply commission in writing prior to the expiration date and
with any approved precise plan of design for the parcel shall clearly state the reasons why construction has not
or parcels on which such structure is to be located.In commenced.
the event any such permit is issued,it shall be null and C. The commission may grant additional time ex-
void and have no further effect.(Ord.299(part),1982) tensions up to a maximum of one year providing that
461
A
ORDINANCE NO. 948
i
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
Section 1. That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25.73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO. 948
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review .
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code, Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day
of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Benson, Kelly, Spiegel, Crites
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferguson
ABSTAIN: None
BUF D A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RA ELLE KLASSEN, cting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPROV ORM:
DAVID J. EKWIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx suggested limiting the hours of deliveries. '
The members voted unanimously to include in the O.P. zone as a conditional use
interior design showrooms.
Whereupon Member Campbell joined the meeting.
3. O.P. - Discussion on maximum length of buildings/ 1 to 1 setback/ height
ratio, etc.
Mr. Drell explained that there has been some concern about large buildings set
very close to the street, and indicated that the medical office building on the
southwest corner of Fred Waring and San Pascual has been described as a long,
monolithic structure.
Member Foxx disagreed that the building is a long, monolithic structure because it
has a break in the middle and undulation throughout the front elevation.
Members Bartlett and Vuksic also commented favorably on the building and felt that
there is no problem.
The consensus of the Committee was that this Tnatter is the purview of the
Architectural Review Commission, and there is no need to develop a standard.
Whereupon Member Benson joined the meeting.
4. Discussion of accessory buildings in residential districts
Member Smith reported that there have been complaints about accessory buildings
being too close to the rear and side property lines, and noted that the code as
written currently allows a maximum 14-foot structure within five feet of the property
line.
Member Campbell suggested limiting the number of accessory structures to one per
lot.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
APRIL 19, 2000
MINUTES
Member Foxx felt that it does not matter if there is one such structure in the front
yard and one in the back, as long as the one in the front does not encroach into the
setback.
Member Bartlett suggested limiting the height to six feet if the location is five feet
from the property line, and that the height be allowed to increase by one additional
foot for every additional foot the structure is away from the property line.
Member Vuksic believed no structures over six feet in height should be allowed
within the entire setback, with which Member Goodman agreed.
Mr. Drell suggested allowing a maximum height of eight feet for an enclosed
structure eight feet from the property line, and a maximum height of 10 feet for an
open structure 10 feet from the property line, and restricting the gross floor area to
120 square feet.
Member Goodman felt that the members should be given additional time to consider
this issue, and the other members concurred.
Member Foxx suggested that a moratorium be imposed in the interim, and the other
members concurred.
5. ADJOURNED: 4:15 PM
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
3
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Steve Smith,
Phil Drell
2. Accessory buildings in residential districts
Mr. Smith reported that the City Council imposed a moratorium on the issuance of
building permit for accessory structures within setbacks on residential properties,
and noted that the moratorium will expire tomorrow; so staff has recommended a
30-day extension. It has become evidence that there are two separate issues, i.e.,
the issue of 8,000 to 10,000 square foot lots and the issue of very large (acre) lots.
The consensus of the Committee was to extend the moratorium.
Member Foxx commented that it is ridiculous to allow a habitable structure within
five feet of the property line, especially since a house is not allowed in that area.
He suggested that habitable accessory structures not be allowed within the setback,
but that a non-habitable structure such as a gazebo or pool changing room would
be okay.
Member O'Donnell agreed with Member Foxx and commented that the problem with
habitable accessory structures so close to the property line is that factors such as
noise creates an impact on neighbors' privacy.
Member Foxx felt that the current 50-foot rear yard setback for RE lots is excessive,
and stated that he would be comfortable with a 20-foot setback for primary
structures on these lots.
Mr. Drell explained that the idea of the semi-rural area is to have lots of open space
between houses.
Member Foxx felt that the definition of accessory structure should be clarified, and
preferred that a separate definition and special development standards be
developed for guest houses, with which Member O'Donnell concurred.
1
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
MAY 10, 2000
MINUTES
Mr. Smith asked that the Committee provide recommendations regarding: 1)the 50-
foot rear setback in the RE zone; 2) limiting the size of accessory structures in the
RE zone; and 3) a height limit for accessory structures in the RE zone.
Member Benson preferred to avoid the appearance of having two houses on a lot,
and felt that the height of accessory structures should be limited.
Mr. Drell noted that this issue could be addressed on a case by case basis by
allowing accessory structures within the setback via approval of a CUP.
Member Foxx felt that a definition of accessory structure in residential zones should
be developed.
Commissioner O'Donnell felt that the existing 50-foot rear yard setback in the RE
zone should be maintained.
Member Foxx felt that habitable accessory structures should not be allowed within
the required setback on small residential lots, and stressed the need, for clear
definitions of accessory structures and guest houses.
The consensus of the Committee was to not allow guest houses within the required
setbacks on small residential lots.
Member Foxx stated that he would not be opposed to non-habitable accessory
structures, i.e., garden shed, at an eight-foot maximum height located eight feet
from the property line, and indicated that the allowed height could be increased by
one foot. Member Foxx expressed support for allowing open accessory structures,
i.e., gazebos, at a 10-foot height maximum located 10 feet from the property line.
Mr. Smith noted that consensus of the Committee to maintain the 50-foot rear yard
setback in the RE zone, and allowing accessory structures within that setback via
approval of a conditional use permit.
3. ADJOURNED: 5:00 PM
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
PLANNING MANAGER
GVLAN GWMCH -AW MCS�0051000.MM 2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Tim Bartlett, Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Jim Foxx, Frank
Goodman, Richard O'Donnell, Steve Smith, Phil Drell
1. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A. -
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow movable copy and
also presented a copy of a memo from the City's Traffic Engineer, Mark
Greenwood, expressing opposition to allowing movable copy signs insofar as it may
cause driver distraction leading to collisions and congestion.
Member Benson was concerned about how the meaning of information of interest
to the general public could be construed and indicated that she would be more
comfortable with a more specific definition. Member Benson indicated that she is
in agreement with the requirement that other such information be displayed in
conjunction with the time and temperature information.
Member Foxx suggested that such signage be approved for a specific period of
time, i.e., one year, on an experimental basis.
Nancy Cobb of Imperial Signs noted that the proposed changeable copy sign for the
A.G. Edwards building will cost approximately $30,000, so an experimental sign is
cost prohibitive.
Ms. Cobb reported that the applicant now wishes to display the stock market index
while the market is open, and to display the time and temperature only when the
market is closed.
1
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 12, 2000
MINUTES
Member Benson indicated that she would not be in favor of such a display, and
would only be supportive if the time and temperature data were displayed
alternately with the stock market index data, with which Members Bartlett, Campbell
and Foxx concurred.
Mr. Drell suggested deleting the proposed language restricting the copy to that
which is related to the business, and recommended that the City Attorney be
consulted regarding an appropriate definition of information of interest to the general
public.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will check with the City Attorney and report back to the
Committee.
2. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
Mr. Smith presented draft language for an amendment to allow accessory structures
via conditional use permit within rear yard setbacks of residential properties 12,000
square feet or greater.
Mr. Drell suggested that language be included providing guidelines to maximum
building size, height and minimum setback.
Mr. Smith proposed language such that the Planning Commission may approve
tract development plot maps having accessory structures within the required rear
yard as long as the structures are not visible from public streets and are not located
in the perimeter of the tract. Members Benson, Campbell and O'Donnell indicated
they would be supportive as long as the minimum lot size was 12,000 square feet,
whereas Members Bartlett, Foxx and Goodman indicated they would be supportive
for any size lots.
Member Bartlett suggested that the height:setback ratio be one to one, as it is
proposed for gazebo structures, and the others agreed.
Mr. Smith indicated that he will rework the draft language and bring it back for
further consideration.
2
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
AUGUST 30, 2000
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:40 p.m.
Present: Jean Benson, Sonia Campbell, Frank Goodman, Bob Leo, Richard
O'Donnell, Steve Smith
1. Review of proposed ordinance revisions for accessory structures
Category for 12,000 square feet and greater
The Committee reviewed the revised language and concurred with the changes
except the inclusion of Subsection E allowing habitable bonus rooms on lots less
than 12,000 square feet in tract developments where the sites are identified at time
of map approval and excluded from perimeter lots.
The Committee recommended approval of the amendment without Subsection E.
The Committee determined that treating new tracts more liberally than existing
homes would be unfair on its face.
2. Discussion on proposed sign ordinance amendment for Section 25.86.090.A.
Prohibited Signs to allow movable copy of Dow Jones market averages as a
community service.
Mr. Smith advised the Committee that they City attorney is still reviewing the
question of how the City could define "signs of general public interest" and noted
that even if these signs could be defined, on-going enforcement would be difficult.
The Committee discussed the merits of the amendment further and directed staff
to table the matter.
1
. \ I
,
_ '4 <
- v<
2 14 > ! .
� . . �\ �\
p «
:i
I
I
I
.a
:a I
�4L I
I
N I
r I
. I o-
�.
rxr4,M a
L
r
h M
l
i l
Al
fug 5-
p O em
/4A1��,
I 4
i
m .yvf 1
r^w ms�
ezr
r �
hAA
�k f
f
q
:a
it {
t c t
4 r J
1^I ;
\\
\
�\ - -
�
\ \ .\\
a� - � 2
i .
v �a { C% ~
� < .� .�a
�T
i
ya ..
�1
0
l
yr
�o-�
p
it
N4
P
i
- -
. �� \
-
\
» 2 / �
, .
. )
\ ƒ 2
\ \ .
s [
WO / |
. �pro.
zz %
-
/ - -
%
. »/ \ /�y { \
> . \\� , � 0 � .. . .
� « :
6 ? + a -
ƒ /
MM �.
.�� � �y. d
r!z
�. ...1j.
�i� �.
1
y
�^
M � ,
� �-
r . 4,
f y
J S l p.r
1 � �
{
t�
i� ((�''
5 1;
f^�
i.._
�''.�: i
„ ,;�
�i�.�,�
_� ',
I
e
1
t � _
((�I��
tq. E t
' ��'
p �,.
'tS
! �
�' -
�.
„� -��
�,
� _,
i
� . � :
.."';;.
"��
�� , ;a ',
-�.` z;. -; •i
.� .
i
e,
£_
.—
�,
i
.�:-
,,
: .
'�, <<:
��
';
- - _ � �a
�.�
f• �
1
4, 11
f
f K"I
rc�
L J
K
1
\ � \§ \ \� � � 2
\ : � � <
� \ \ « �
� ��\ \ %
\ ��x
\ '� ^
. �\ . ° \
\ . :� - .
: ���
7� <
% . . . v�
, : � 1
t\
�\ . \ � » � j
. . . ? � �
�\ \ / \ � � -� . �.
. ; \ � , § .
{� . \> � w\ �
. � \ \ . � .
a� ° \ ` .
w \ . -
7 2 .
\ \ � �
- ; : � .
� � ) � � � � »
\ . _ . > , �
\\ . \ \
3\ z . «
� �}
\ . <�\ \
CITY OF PP '. M DESERI
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-061 I
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280 Detached
Accessory Buildings.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
September 29, 2000 City of Palm Desert, California
CIIY 01 PH M 9ESERI
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8
TEL: 760 346—o61I
FAX: 760 341-7098 _
info C palm-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.280
Detached Accessory Buildings.
1.0 nln lD n.xmmm nnn
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those-issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
September 9, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 20, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The existing code provision allows for detached accessory buildings in rear yards.
Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and those that did
usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home
Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings (bonus
rooms) as an option in their development. These buildings are proving to be a popular
item.
The code allows these structures to be located within five feet of side and rear
property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are limited in size
but they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures staff took the matter to
ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current provisions for
these buildings were far too liberal. The code allows accessory structures which are
too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At a subsequent ZORC meeting on May 10, 2000 it arrived at a consensus to amend
the ordinance. The suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than
40,000 square feet to apply through a conditional use permit process for accessory
buildings in the required rear yard.
On lots less than 40,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds of 100
square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted with minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of ARC.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
JUNE 26, 2000
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet are
permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height
subject to approval by ARC.
Habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall not be permitted in the required rear or side
yard.
Staff originally had felt that these amendments would address the matter
satisfactorily. At this time staff would prefer to continue the matter to allow ZORC
to discuss possibly including provision for lots between 20,000 and 40,000 square
feet and allow bonus rooms in rear yards of new tract projects where they are not
on the perimeter and where they are plotted at the time of site plan review.
II. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission continue Case No. ZOA 00-04 indefinitely.
Prepared by
Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved by (1t.�
it Drell
Am
2
07
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
Section 1 . That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25,73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO.
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code, Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day.
.of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAVID J. ERWIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
ORDINANCE NO.
7) Unless the City adopts an interim urgency ordinance to impose a temporary
moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of approvals
for accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts in the City, the
additional construction and development of accessory buildings in rear yards
in residential districts in the City may result in negative aesthetic impacts and
lower property values in the community.
Section 2. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Government Code
Section 65858, the City Council hereby extends the moratorium established by Ordinance
No. 944 for a period of thirty(30)additional days on the acceptance of applications and the
issuance of approvals for the construction and development of accessory buildings in rear
yards in residential districts in the City excluding from said moratorium structures of 100
square feet or less having a maximum height of 8 feet subject to said structures being
approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by a four-
fifths vote of the City Council.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Sun, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
City of Palm Desert, California
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT Ordinance No. 948
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of adoption of an urgency ordinance amending
Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CITY COUNCIL IlCTION:
IV. DATE: June 8, 2000 PROVED ✓ DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
V. CONTENTS: MEETING DATE -
AYES: 77i
A. Staff Recommendation NOES:..
ABSENT
B. Discussion ABSTAIN:_
C. Draft Ordinance No. 948 VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City rk's Office
---------------------------------------------------—-------------------------------------—-------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Pass Ordinance No. '948 amending Municipal Code Section"25.68.280 Detached
Accessory Buildings.
B. DISCUSSION:
1 . BACKGROUND:
April 27, 2000 City Council passed Ordinance No. 944 which established for
14 days a moratorium on the acceptance of applications and issuance of
approvals for the construction and development of accessory buildings in rear
yards in residential districts. The moratorium had been recommended by
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee to allow it sufficient time to rewrite and
process an appropriate amendment.
May 1 1 , 2000 City Council extended the moratorium for 30 additional days.
2. ANALYSIS:
It will take approximately two months to process any ordinance amendment
through the Planning Commission and City Council.
r
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MC SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
JUNE 8, 2000
To cover the period between the expiration of the moratorium and the
effective date of the ordinance amendment staff recommends that City Council
adopt the enclosed urgency ordinance which is consistent with the provisions
proposed by Zoning Ordinance Review Committee at its May 10, 2000
meeting. Zoning Ordinance Review will continue to study this matter and it
will be scheduled for public hearing before Planning Commission in June or
July. This ordinance will divide the issue of accessory buildings in rear yards
into two categories.
FIRST CATEGORY
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more accessory buildings will be permitted
subject to approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and
approval by Architectural Review Commission.
SECOND CATEGORY
On lots less than 40,000 square feet accessory buildings of 100 square feet
or less used for storage purposes with a maximum height of 8 feet will be
permitted with, a minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line. with
approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet
shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each
foot of height subject to approval by ARC.
Habitable structures and garages shall not be permitted in the required rear
yard.
Prepared by: Reviewed and aApproved by: Review and Concur:
Steve Smith Philip Drell Carlos L. Ortega
Planning Manager Dir. of Community Development Acting City Manager
Am
2
ORDINANCE NO. 948
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
,NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
jSection 1 . That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25.73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO. 948
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages,work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day
of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Benson, Kelly, Spiegel, Crites
NOES: None
ABSENT: Ferguson
ABSTAIN: None
BUF D A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RAcHECLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPR=RM:
DAVID J. WWIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of adoption of an urgency ordinance amending
Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory
Buildings
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. DATE: June 8, 2000
V. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Pass Ordinance No. amending Municipal Code Section 25.68.280 Detached
Accessory Buildings.
B. DISCUSSION:
1. BACKGROUND:
April 27, 2000 City Council passed Ordinance No. 944 which established for
14 days a moratorium on the acceptance of applications and issuance of
approvals for the construction and development of accessory buildings in rear
yards in residential districts. The moratorium had been recommended by
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee to allow it sufficient time to rewrite and
process an appropriate amendment.
May 11 , 2000 City Council extended the moratorium for 30 additional days.
2. ANALYSIS:
It will take approximately two months to process any ordinance amendment
through the Planning Commission and City Council.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MC SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
JUNE 8, 2000
To cover the period between the expiration of the moratorium and the
effective date of the ordinance amendment staff recommends that City Council
adopt the enclosed urgency ordinance which is consistent with the provisions
proposed by Zoning Ordinance Review Committee at its May 10, 2000
meeting. Zoning Ordinance Review will continue to study this matter and it
will be scheduled for public hearing before Planning Commission in June or
July. This ordinance will divide the issue of accessory buildings in rear yards
into two categories.
FIRST CATEGORY
On lots of 40,000 square feet or more accessory buildings will be permitted
subject to approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and
approval by Architectural Review Commission.
SECOND CATEGORY
On lots less than 40,000 square feet accessory buildings of 100 square feet
or less used for storage purposes with a maximum height of 8 feet will be
permitted with a minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line with
approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet
shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each
foot of height subject to approval by ARC.
Habitable structures and garages shall not be permitted in the required rear
yard.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Review and Concur:
__ _LA
Steve Smith Philip Drell Carlos L. Ortega
Planning Manager Dir. of Community Development Acting City Manager
/tm
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 25.56.280 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, Government Code § 36937 (B) authorizes the City Council to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety so
long as the ordinance contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and so
long as the ordinance is passed by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, the City desires
to amend the Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings; and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or
welfare in that approval of detached accessory buildings in rear yards of residential lots
would result in a threat to the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code does not adequately restrict development, placement,
size and height of detached accessory buildings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
as follows:
Section 1 . That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That Municipal Code Section 25,56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall
be subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required
yard setback except a rear yard setback. Accessory buildings not located in
any required yard setback shall not be subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard setback upon
approval of a conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by
Architectural Review Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission
or City Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section
25.73.013 "Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
ORDINANCE NO.
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or
less of floor area with a maximum height of 8 feet shall be permitted with a
minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line upon approval of
Architectural Review Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum
height of 10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of
setback for each foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review
Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings
and the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard setback.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building
coverage allowed by the zone is exceeded."
Section 3. This ordinance is passed as an urgency measure pursuant to Government
Code, Section 36937, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Section 4. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and to be
in full force and effect immediately upon passage by a 4/5 vote of the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, pursuant to Government Code Section 36934.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 8th day
of June, 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, Acting City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DAVID J. ERWIN, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert, California
2
25.73.010
Chapter 25.73 C. The plan of the proposed parking area for the
development to which the parking is accessory;the plan
PRECISE PLAN shall be drawn to an engineering scale of sufficient size
to clearly indicate the proposed development including
Sections: location,size,shape,design,curb cuts,lighting,drainage,
25.73.010 When required paving,parking stalls,landscaping,and other features and
25.73.011 Contents. appurtenances of the proposed parking lot;
25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise D. The location,dimensions and method of improve-
plan. ment of all property to be dedicated to the public or to
25.73.013 Approval or rejection public utilities;
considerations. E. Examples of proposed architectural treatment in
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. the four of perspectives and elevations and such other data
25.73.015 Compliance required. as may be required by the planning commission, design
25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans. review board or environmental services director in evaluat-
25.73.017 Distinction from other precise mg the proposed development shall be required and become
a plans. an integral part of such a submittal;
25.73.018 Street frontage requirements. F. In all zones other than single-family residential or
25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan. for any use specifically permitted in said zones,or for any
25.73.020 Amendment to a precise plan. use for which a conditional use permit is required the
general location,area, and type of landscaping;
25.73.010 When required. G. General nature of the proposed use.(Ord 299(part),
A. No person shall commence any use for which a 1982)
conditional use permit is required or any use not permitted
in either the R-1, RE zone,and no building permit shall 25.73.012 Approval or rejection of precise
be issued for any structure to be used for or in conjunction plam.
with any such use,until a precise plan of design covering Any such precise plan of design may be rejected,ap-
the parcel or parcels to be so used shall be approved and proved, modified and approved, or approved subject to
adopted as provided in this chapter. The precise plan of conditions.Any such precise plan of design after approval,
design may be filed and approved as a part of the condition- may be amended, in the same manner as a precise plan
al use permit procedure. of design is first approved under this chapter. (Ord. 299
q� B. Notwithstanding any provision of the Uniform (part), 1982)
Building Code,no grading permit shall be issued for the
grading or excavation of any land,until a precise plan of 25.73.013 Approval or rejection
design,tentative tract map,or tentative parcel map covering considerations.
the property proposed to be graded or excavated has been A_ In the approval or rejection of a precise plan of
approved and adopted as provided in this chapter. design,consideration shall be given and restrictions shall
This subsection shall not apply to the grading or excava- be imposed to the extent necessary, in view of the size
tion required in connection with: and shape of the parcel and the present and proposed zoning
1. The construction of a swimming
pool on property and use of the subject property and the surrounding proper-
in the residential zone; or ty,to permit the same degree of enjoyment of the subject
2. The movement of less than fifty cubic yards of earth; property,but subject to the same degree of protection of
or adjoining properties, as would be accorded in normal
4 3. The grading of any parcel of property outside of circumstances by the standard restrictions imposed by this
the hillside overlay zone so as to improve the land for chapter.The standard restrictions imposed in the various
emergency drainage purposes. (Ord. 299 (part), 1982) zones by this chapter relating to the subjects mentioned
d in Section 27.73.011 are intended as minimum restrictions
25.73.011 Contents. necessary in normal circumstances to prevent substantial
Such precise plan of design shall specify and include: depreciation of property values in the vicinity,unreasonable
d A. The location,size,height,and type of all structures interference with the use and enjoyment of
including signs, walls and fences;
B. The location,size and dimensions of all yards and
setbacks and all spaces between structures;
460-3 (Palm De 7-95)
9
9
9
25.73.013
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for 25.73.016 Continuance of existing plans.
lawful purposes and the protection of the public peace, Any precise plan previously approved and in effect,
health, safety and general welfare. "Normal circrm- shall remain in effect regardless of any changes to
stances"are intended to refer to the case of a permitted zoning regulations subsequently adopted unless the
case upon a lot of a normal size and shape surrounded precise plans are made null and void or amended at the
by property in the same zone as the lot in question. time of adoption.(Ord 299(part),1982)
B. If the proposed precise plan of design would
substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity 25.73.017 Distinction from other precise plans.
or would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoy- The precise plans of design referred to in this chap.
ment of property in the vicinity by the occupants ter are not to be confused with or considered to be
thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the precise plans as referred to in the Government Code of
public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such the state.(Ord.299(part),1982)
plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or condi-
tioned before adoption as to remove said objections. 25.73.018 Street frontage requirements.
C. In addition to the foregoinggrounds of rejection, No building or other structure to be used for any
the planning commission and city council,as the case business or commercial purpose shall hereafter be
may be,may also consider and take into account the erected unless the frontage of the lot,or parcel of land
exterior architectural design,general exterior appear- upon which such building or structure is erected,abuts
ances,landscape, color, texture of surface materials on one side of a public street between two intersecting
and exterior construction, shape and bulk and other streets andunless thefront of such buildingorstructure
physical characteristics including location and type of abuts on and faces such public street;provided,how-
public utility facilities,and if it is found that the pro- ever, that when practical difficulties or unnecessary
posed precise plan of design,including the considers- hardships result through the strict and literal interpre-
[ions enumerated in this chapter would interfere with tation and enforcement of the provisions of this chap-
the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise ter,the planning commission or city n may,upon
the adoption of a precise plan of design for the devel-
plan area,or with the existing or proposed use thereof, opment of a particular lot or parcel of land and upon
such precise plan of design shall be rejected or shall be such conditions as it may`establish, expressly vary or
so modified or conditioned before approval as to re- waive the requirements of this section.(Ord.299(part),
move the objections.(Ord.299(part),1982) 1982)
25.73.014 Approval subject to condition. 25.73.019 Failure to utilize a precise plan.
A precise plan of design may be approved subject to A. Failure to utilize a precise plan within one year
the granting of a change of zone, a conditional use of its effective date(unless extended by action of the
permit,a variance or the approval of a final subdivision planning commission)will automatically void such pre-
map,and the planning commission or city council may cise plan In the event construction work is involved,
require such a precise plan of design to be submitted such work must actually commence within the stated
prior to the granting or recommending of a zone period and be diligently pursued.If the city should find
change,variance or conditional use permit.(Ord.299 that there has been no construction of substantial char-
(part),1982) acter taken or if such construction should lapse for
more than six months,the precise plan shall be void.
25.73.015 Compliance required., B. Extension of time up to a maximum oneyear may
be granted from the date of expiration of the precise
No person shall violate or fail to comply with any
pion by the planning commission when extenuating
approved precise plan of design or any conditions or
circumstances can be clearly shown by the applicant.
provisions thereof nor shall a building permit be issued The request for same shall be submitted to the planning
for any structure which would violate or fail to comply commission in writing prior to the expiration date and
with any approved precise plan of design for the parcel shall clearly state the reasons why construction has not
or parcels on which such structure is to be located.In commenced.
the event any such permit is issued,it shall be null and C. The commission may grant additional time ex-
void and have no further effect.(Ord.299(part),1982) tensions up to a maximum of one year providing that
461
-jr 12! 13M I SS I 0111 REPO? T a-*
JUN-01-00 13: 30 ID: 7603417096 CITY OF PALM DESERT
-TOS 1-1"MBER 7 1 6
I I�IFORMA'r I C)P4 CODE OK
TELEPHONE NUMBER 7784731
NAME( ID NUMBER) 7607784731
START TIME JUN-01-00 13:29
PAGES TRANSMITTED 001 TRANSMISSION MODE G3
RESOLUTION STD REDIALING TIMES 00
SECURITY OFF MAILBOX OFF
MACHINE ENGAGED 00.45
THIS TRANSMISSION IS COMPLETED.
LAST SUCCESSFUL PAGE 001
i
{ 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TEE PN ONE(6l9)3qa-061 l
I, CITY OF PALM DESERT
{ ` LEGAL NOTICE
' CASE NO. ZOA 00-04 '
I '
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be hall before tha Palm Oasart Planning
Commloalon to oonsider an amandmant to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.66.280
Oataohad Accessory Buildings.
II
Posttir Feu NOIO 1671
i
I �
1 1
SAID public hearing will be halll on Tuesday, Juno 20, 2000, at 7:00 p_m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Oasart Civic Canter, 73-510 Praci Waring Mrivo, Palm Oasart,
California, at which time and place all intarastacl persons are invited to attend and ba heard.
Wrlttan comments concerning all items covarad by this. public haarino noUoa shall ba
aoceptacl up to the date of the haarino.
I Ordinance No. 945
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
11. REQUEST: Consideration of extending for thirty (30) days an interim urgency
ordinance of the City of Palm Desert, California, adopting a
moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance
of approvals for the construction and development of accessory
buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
III. APPLICANT: . City of Palm Desert
IV. DATE: May 11, 2000
V. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 945
---------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Pass Ordinance No. 945 extending for 30 days a moratorium on acceptance of
applications and the issuance of approvals for the construction and development of
accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
B. DISCUSSION:
April 27, 2000 City Council passed Ordinance No. 944 which established for 14 days
a moratorium on the acceptance of applications and .issuance of approvals for the
construction and development of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential
districts. The moratorium had been recommended by Zoning Ordinance Review
Committee to allow it sufficient time to rewrite and process an appropriate
amendment.
At the April 27, 2000 meeting Council expressed concern that it was being asked to
establish a moratorium and the building industry, specifically the developer of tracts
which offer accessory structures as an option had not been made aware of the
proposed action.
Ordinance No. 945
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF MORATORIUM
MAY 11, 2000
At this time the only developer offering these structures is GHA Holdings which is
building two tracts on the south side of Hovley Lane, west of Portola Avenue. GHA
Holdings has been contacted by staff and invited to attend the Council meeting.
Staff also contacted Sonia Campbell who lives in the Hovley Court development
immediately to the east of the Sandpiper (GHA Holdings) tract. Mrs. Campbell
advised that she would advise her homeowner's association of the meeting.
This still does not address the individual property owner situation where one
homeowner decides to put an additional garage in his rear yard that impacts on the
neighbor (i.e., 14 foot high structure 5 feet from the property line) as occurred at the
southwest corner of Lavender Way and Amaryllis Way which is located north of Fred
Waring Drive east of Deep Canyon.
As an alternative to a moratorium on all detached structures in the rear yard City
Council may wish to just restrict the larger structures. Small structures of 100
square feet or less and a maximum height of eight feet could be excluded from the
moratorium with the understanding that such requests would require review and
approval through Architectural Review Commission.
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee is scheduled to meet to discuss this matter on
Wednesday, May 10, 2000. Staff intends to present several options to ZORC for
discussion. Staff will report the results of that meeting to City Council.
Prepared by:
teve Smith
Reviewed and Approved b .
hilip Drell
/tm
sn awe:«i 2
ORDINANCE NO. 945
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING FOR THIRTY
(30) DAYS AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS
AND THE ISSUANCE OF APPROVALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS IN REAR YARDS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 27th
day of April, 2000, pass Ordinance No. 944 adopting for a period of 14 days a moratorium
on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of approvals for the construction and
development of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts;
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, desires to extend
said interim ordinance for an additional 30 days pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65858;
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert in the past has received requests for approval
of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts;
WHEREAS, accessory structures in rear yards in residential districts can have a
significant adverse impact on adjacent residential lots in the area;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert
is studying the issue of accessory structures in rear yards of residential districts;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend an interim urgency ordinance to
impose a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of application for, and the issuance of,
City approvals for any new accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts in order
to allow the City a reasonable amount of time to study the issue and enact appropriate
regulatory and zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, to protect the public health, safety and welfare, California Government
Code Section 65858 authorizes the City to adopt interim urgency ordinances prohibiting
any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the City is
studying or considering or intends to study or consider within a reasonable time; and
1
ORDINANCE NO. 945
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 36937 and 65858 require that an
interim urgency ordinance be adopted by a four-fifths vote of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council declares that extension of the interim urgency
ordinance imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of
approvals for the construction and development of new accessory structures in rear yards
in residential districts is necessary for the immediate protection of the public welfare, and
hereby finds and determines as follows:
1) The current City code regulating accessory buildings in rear yards in
residential districts allows fourteen (14) foot high structures within five (5)
feet of a side and rear property line.
2) Structures of this height being this close to the property line has the potential
to significantly impact the adjacent properties.
3) The City's Municipal Code must be amended so as to adequately address
the regulation of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
4) The City's Zoning Ordinance Review Committee;is presently reviewing the
existing City ordinance which regulates accessory buildings in residential
districts and has indicated that it needs more time to adequately study the
issue.
5) Accepting applications and issuing approvals for the construction and
development of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts under
the existing ordinance provisions could result in negative aesthetic affects
and lower property values for the surrounding properties and the community
as a whole.
6) The City Council desires to minimize and control these negative effects, and
thereby protect the welfare of the residents of the City; preserve the quality
of life in the community; and preserve.the property values and the character
of the neighborhoods surrounding potential accessory buildings in rear yards
of residential districts.
2
fs
ORDINANCE NO. 945
7) Unless the City adopts an interim urgency ordinance to impose a temporary
moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of approvals
for accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts in the City, the
additional construction and development of accessory buildings in rear yards
in residential districts in the City may result in negative aesthetic impacts and
lower property values in the community.
Section 2. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Government Code
Section 65858, the City Council hereby extends the moratorium established by Ordinance
No. 944 for a period of thirty (30)additional days on the acceptance of applications and the
issuance of approvals for the construction and development of accessory buildings in rear
yards in residential districts in the City.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by a four-
fifths vote of the City Council.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Sun, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this IIth day of May, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
City of Palm Desert, California
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1 That Municipal Code Section 25.56.280 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled by this chapter shall be
subject to the following regulations:
A. Detached accessory buildings shall not be erected in any required yard
except a rear yard. Accessory buildings not located in any required yard shall not be
subject to this section.
B. On lots having 40,000 square feet of lot area or more detached
accessory buildings may be located in a required rear yard upon approval of a
conditional use permit by Planning Commission and approval by Architectural Review
Commission.
In reviewing said conditional use permit the Planning Commission or City
Council shall use the criteria enumerated in Municipal Code Section 25.73.013
"Approval or rejection considerations" in making its decision.
C. On lots having less than 40,000 square feet of lot area detached
accessory buildings used for storage purposes and having 100 square feet or less of
floor area with a maximum height of eight feet shall be permitted with a minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line upon approval by Architectural Review
Commission.
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of
10 feet shall be permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each
foot of building height upon approval of Architectural Review Commission.
Habitable structures, garages, work shops, large storage buildings and
the like shall not be permitted in the required rear yard.
D. No accessory building shall be approved if the total building coverage
allowed by the zone is exceeded."
3
Cc�reA� E c Se 6
2556.280 Detached accessory buildings.
Accessory buildings except as otherwise controlled
by this chapter shall be subject to the following regula-
tions: ,
A. Accessory buildings shall not be erected in any
required yard,except a rearyarcb
B. Anaoeesssorybu0dingnotexceedingonestoryor
fourteen feet in height may not occupy more than
twenty-five percent of a required rear yard plus forty
t� percent of the dabWarea provided tbat the total building
coverage alto ed-by the zone is not exceeded.
C. No accessory building shall be located closer than
ten feet to any main building nor shall it be located closer
than five feet to any side or rear lot line. (Ord. 128 § 7
(part). 1976: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §
25.32-7.07(8))
k'.
l
- ; p CANN", - ,,
CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVED
APR 2 12000
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY MANAGER
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
IL REQUEST: Consideration of adoption of an urgency ordinance adopting a
moratorium on acceptance of applications and the issuance of
approvals for the construction and development of accessory
buildings in rear yards in residential districts
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. DATE: April 27, 2000
V. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Background
C. Discussion
D. Draft Ordinance
E. Staff report to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 944
B. BACKGROUND:
The City has a code provision allowing for detached accessory buildings in rear
yards since the code was first established in 1975. Until recently, few people took
advantage of this code section, and those that did usually put in 100 square feet
metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home Depot.
At this time, several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings as
an option in their development. These buildings are proving to be a popular item.
C. ' DISCUSSION:
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff placed on the April 19, 2000
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) agenda discussion of accessory
buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
t
ZORC held a lengthy and spirited discussion on the issue and concluded that the
present code provisions are far too liberal. The current provisions allow accessory
structures which are too large, too tall and too close to the property line. ZORC
directed staff to present this urgency ordinance to the City Council so that the
Committee will have time to study the issue further.
Prepared by: Reviewed and QApproved by;
ST VET PHIL DRELL
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
4ON DIAZ
wpdocs\sr\access.urg CITY MANAGER
CITY COUNCIL *ION' DENIED
APPROVED OTHER
RECEIVED�—
r1EETIN DATE -BO
;YES:
ti:OES:
6,BSENT:
eiBSTAIN•
f4ERIFIED BY
f�ri_ainal on File with City tiferk I s O£Pice
*Adopted moratorium on the acceptance of applications and
issuance of approvals for the construction and development
of accessory buildings until May 11, 2000, inviting the
developer and affected property owners to be present at the
meeting of May 11, 2000, to provide their input, with ZORC
directed to revisit the issue prior to that meeting, as well.
2
o
Cn
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's lCtIng Sln p m
(2015.5.C.C.P) M N m
x
rrn
REC07IVED
w
SEP 12 2000 M s
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY Of PALM DESERT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years,and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter.I am the Ne
clerk of a .s9tz
principal CITY OF PALM DESERT
printer of the, DESERT SUN PUBLISHING LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 001
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
rioted and published in the ci •of Palm Springs, will be held before the Pelm Desert Planning
P PMuncilpel oCode,Chapter, al5 amendment
to the
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been ce p bncdiheering will be held on Tuesday.
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the September t9, z000, et r:� •^' In the Council
Superior-Court of the County of Riverside,State of Chamber at the PeI em p ert�C Iitarn es al
Fred Waring Drive, persons are
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case which lima antl place all interested
Number 191236; that the notice,of which the Invited to attend and o heard.y thiiis P public hear
concerning all Items covered by
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller ing notice shall be accepted up the e del
the hearing Infonne Of
atlon oonceming the pro
than non ariel,has been published in each regular project and/or negative t ofemtion is evade el for
P P g review in the Depanment of Commn I Develop-
vie entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ment at the above address between the Hours of
8:00 e.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: It you ohallenga,tha propose9d scions in court,
you m ey be Dina eeseor r(I at the PUWlI as n9
September 9th described In this notice• or in vrthten cortesn at, _-
-'� - dance delivered to the Plann9ging Commhsbn et,
or prior to,the public he Hn . DREIL, Secrptaq"
Palm Desert Planning GOTmi -on
PUB: September 9. 2000
All in the year 2000
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
lith
Dated at Palm Springs,California this day
September
of 2000
Signature
I
CITY OE P .. [ M OESERI
73-5
IO FRED WARING DRIVE
_ PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6i i
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: June 21 , 2000
City of Palm Desert
Re: ZOA 00-04
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its meeting of June 20, 2000:
PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CASE NO. ZOA 00-04 TO A DATE
UNCERTAIN BY MINUTE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
ti
STEPHEN R. SM�C KING'�SECRETAR
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
Am
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
iv E1111EoN1E111n11�1E
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 2000
D. Case No. ZOA 00-04 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
Mr. Smith indicated that staff would be recommending a continuance of this
matter. If there were people here who wished to speak to the matter, the
commission should hear from them so that staff could incorporate any
comments they might have into the final version. He reported that the council
at its meeting of June 8 adopted an urgency ordinance that effectively allowed
people on large lots of 40,000 square feet or larger to request such buildings
through a conditional use permit process and a couple of those applications
had been received that would be coming before the commission on July,18.
On lots less than 40,000 square feet, there wouldn't be any more :bonus
rooms. They might see gazebos.or small storage sheds of 100 square feet or
less. Staff went back to ZORC last Wednesday!and that group heard from
some people who were on a 25,000 square foot lot and they made a case for
a category for that size, so staff would be reporting back.to ZORC on that and
following that it.would be brought back to commission through another legal
noticing process. When it was scheduled,-staff•thought they had it ready to
go., but there. appeared to be other categories that. they,needed to explore.
ZORC would be working on that further after their next meeting, which was
July 12.
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and noted that there,was no one
in the audience to speak.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
continuing Case No. ZOA 00-04 indefinitely. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Jonathan strongly concurred with staff's concerns with some
of the disallowances, but also liked that there would be some situations where
they would be allowed. Mr. Smith stated that staff would be open to any
discussion the commission might want to present. Staff was thinking in the
range of 12,000 to 15,000 square feet as a break off point and would be open
to any other comments. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would concur
as long it was a public hearing process and the neighbors had an opportunity
to give input. He thought that would be appropriate. He didn't like to see
zoning restrictions that were so absolute that said it wasn't allowed at all
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 2000
because they could very easily have a situation where it was appropriate.
Some mechanism in place that would enable it:would be appropriate. With a
provision for pre approved projects, everyone going in would know about the
possibility that there was an allowed structure, whether it got built or not,
which would be appropriate. He thought something along those lines would
be good to pursue. Mr. Smith said that was the direction staff was taking.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A•. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (No.meeting)
B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE -_(No.meeting)
C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (June 20; 2000)
Commissioner Finerty indicated that the committee had a presentation
from Hilton with regard to their 250 rooms situated in villas, as well as
their convention center. She thought it would be before commission
within the next couple of months. They would probably be hearing
from Montecito homeowners regarding the proposed parking structure.
D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (June 19, 2000)
Regarding the regional park, Commissioner Finerty indicated they were
looking at 280 homes with the park. The middle school was still
uncertain. She said that the Parks and Rec. office would like to relocate
to the new regional park. A consultant would be hired for the design of
the park soon. She also indicated that Phil Smith shared with the
committee a project they were proposing between Fred Waring and
Hovley just west of Palm Desert Country Club on 640 acres. He was
proposing 650 low density homes similar to Indian Ridge. Chairperson
12
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 20, 2000
CASE NO: ZOA 00-04
REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
June 8, 2000 City Council adopted an urgency ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 25.56.280 Detached Accessory Buildings.
The existing code provision allows for detached accessory buildings in rear yards.
Until recently, few people took advantage of this code section and those that did
usually put in 100 square foot metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home
Depot.
At this time several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings (bonus
rooms) as an option in their development. These buildings are proving to be a popular
item.
The code allows these structures to be located within five feet of side and rear
property lines with a maximum height of 14 feet. These buildings are limited in size
but they can be quite large (300-400 square feet).
As a result of complaints about some of these structures staff took the matter to
ZORC. At its meeting of April 19, 2000 ZORC concluded that current provisions for
these buildings were far too liberal. The code allows accessory structures which are
too large, too tall and too close to property lines.
At a subsequent ZORC meeting on May 10, 2000 it arrived at a consensus to amend
the ordinance. The suggested amendment allows persons with lots larger than
40,000 square feet to apply through a conditional use permit process for accessory
buildings in the required rear yard.
On lots less than 40,000 square feet ZORC recommended that storage sheds of 100
square feet or less with a maximum height of eight feet be permitted with minimum
setback of eight feet from any property line with approval of ARC.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 00-04
JUNE 20, 2000
Open, non-habitable, gazebo-like structures with a maximum height of 10 feet are
permitted with a minimum setback of one foot of setback for each foot of height
subject to approval by ARC.
Habitable structures (bonus rooms) shall not be permitted in the required rear or side
yard.
Staff originally had felt that these amendments would address the matter
satisfactorily. At this time staff would prefer to continue the matter to allow ZORC
to discuss possibly including provision for lots between 20,000 and 40,000 square
feet and allow bonus rooms in rear yards of new tract projects where they are not
on the perimeter and where they are plotted at the time of site plan review.
II. RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission continue Case No. ZOA 00-04 indefinitely.
Prepared by
Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved by
c
Oil Drell
/tm
2
74
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
� o
- _ o
cF-?VF-0
m
rn NO n
JUN 21 2000 � m
S.
N —p
� 3 ffl
OOMMUNITY CEYELOPMBIT DEPARTMENT t7
CRY OF PALM DESERT T r~v
STATE OF CALIFORNIA p
County of Riverside rTl t--+
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen ----
years,and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a No.50153 CITY OF PALM DESERT
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING LEGAL NOTICE
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, CASE NO.NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thata public hearing
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider an amendment to the
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been Municipal Code,Chapter 25.56.280 Detachetl Ac-
cessory Buildings.,
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the SAID ublic hearing will be held'on Tuesday,
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of June zp0,2000,a<7:00 p.m:in the Council Chem-
p t}' C, bar at the Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case Waring tlDrive, Palm Desert, California, at which
time an place all interested persons are invited
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the to attend and be heard. Written comments con-
earning all items covered by this public hearing
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller notice shall be accepted up to the date of the
hoaxing. Information concerning the pro clued
than non panel,has been published in each regular project and/or negative declaration is availagle for
review in the Department of Community Develop.
.and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any : ment at the above address between the hours of
lament thereof on the following dates,to wit: 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday.
supplement g If you challenge the proposed actions in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised el the public hearing
June 7, descnbod in this notice, or In written wrresper-
dense delivered to the Planning Commission at,
-- or Prior to. the public hearing.
PHI LIP DRELL,Secretary. Palm Desert Planning
Commission.
PUBLISH: The Desert Sun,June 7, 2000.
All in the year 2000
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
7th
Dated at Palm Springs,California this day
June
of --,2000
Signature
CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVED
APR 2 12000
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY MANAGER
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of adoption of an urgency ordinance adopting a
moratorium on acceptance of applications and the issuance of
approvals for the construction and development of accessory
buildings in rear yards in residential districts
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. DATE: April 27, 2000
V. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Background
C. Discussion
D. Draft Ordinance
E. Staff report to Zoning Ordinance Review Committee
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 944
B. BACKGROUND:
The City has a code provision allowing for detached accessory buildings in rear
yards since the code was first established in 1975. Until recently, few people took
advantage of this code section, and those that did usually put in 100 square feet
metal tool sheds which they purchased at Home Depot.
At this time, several tract developers are offering detached accessory buildings as
an option in their development. These buildings are proving to be a popular item.
C. DISCUSSION:
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff placed on the April 19, 2000
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee (ZORC) agenda discussion of accessory
buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
1
ZORC held a lengthy and spirited discussion on the issue and concluded that the
resent code provisions are far too liberal. The current provisions allow accessory
P P P
structures which are too large, too tall and too close to the property line. ZORC
directed staff to present this urgency ordinance to the City Council so that the
Committee will have time to study the issue further.
and Approved b
Prepared by: Reviewedpp :y
ST VE SMITH PHIL DRELL
PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
I,
ON DIAZ
wpdocs�sr\eccess.urg CITY MANAGER
CITY COUNCIL bjCTION: DENIED
;rPPROVED
M-CEIVED--� OTl'.ER
cCETIN DZYMA b6
;s'ES: � a
rWE S.
„W SENT:
;MSTAIN:
VFRIFIED BY:
/%ri.,Ti..n•al on File with City lerk's Offir.e
*Adopted moratorium on the acceptance of applications and
issuance of approvals for the construction and development
of accessory buildings until May 11, 2000, inviting the
developer and affected property owners to be present at the
meeting of May 11, 2000, to provide their input, with ZORC
directed to revisit the issue prior to that meeting, as well.
2
Ordinance No. 945
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of extending for thirty (30) days an interim urgency
ordinance of the City of Palm Desert, California, adopting a
moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance
of approvals for the construction and development of accessory
buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
IV. DATE: May 11, 2000
V. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 945
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Pass Ordinance No. 945 extending for 30 days a moratorium on acceptance of
applications and the issuance of approvals for the construction and development of
accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
B. DISCUSSION:
April 27, 2000 City Council passed Ordinance No. 944 which established for 14 days
a moratorium on the acceptance of applications and issuance of approvals for the
construction and development of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential
districts. The moratorium had been recommended by Zoning Ordinance Review
Committee to allow it sufficient time to rewrite and process an appropriate
amendment.
At the April 27, 2000 meeting Council expressed concern that it was being asked to
establish a moratorium and the building industry, specifically the developer of tracts
which offer accessory structures as an option had not been made aware of the
proposed action.
f
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Ordinance No. 945
CONSIDERATION OF MORATORIUM
MAY 11, 2000
At this time the only developer offering these structures is GHA Holdings which is
building two tracts on the south side of Hovley Lane, west of Portola Avenue. GHA
Holdings has been contacted by staff and invited to attend the Council meeting.
Staff also contacted Sonia Campbell who lives in the Hovley Court development
immediately to the east of the Sandpiper (GHA Holdings) tract. Mrs. Campbell
advised that she would advise her homeowner's association of the meeting.
This still does not address the individual property owner situation where one
homeowner decides to put an additional garage in his rear yard that impacts on the
neighbor (i.e., 14 foot high structure 5 feet from the property line) as occurred at the
southwest corner of Lavender Way and Amaryllis Way which is located north of Fred
Waring Drive east of Deep Canyon.
As an alternative to a moratorium on all detached structures in the rear yard City
Council may wish to just restrict the larger structures. Small structures of 100
square feet or less and a maximum height of eight feet could be excluded from the
moratorium with the understanding that such requests would require review and
approval through Architectural Review Commission.
Zoning Ordinance Review Committee is scheduled to meet to discuss this matter on
Wednesday, May 10, 2000. Staff intends to present several options to ZORC for
discussion. Staff will report the results of that meeting to City Council.
Prepared by:
Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved b .
Philip Drell
/tm
(Mmoratorm.co 2
ORDINANCE NO. 945
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING FOR THIRTY
(30) DAYS AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS
AND THE ISSUANCE OF APPROVALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS IN REAR YARDS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 27th
day of April, 2000, pass Ordinance No. 944 adopting for a period of 14 days a moratorium
on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of approvals for the construction and
development of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts;
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, desires to extend
said interim ordinance for an additional 30 days pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65858;
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert in the past has received requests for approval
of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts;
WHEREAS, accessory structures in rear yards in residential districts can have a
significant adverse impact on adjacent residential lots in the area;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert
is studying the issue of accessory structures in rear yards of residential districts;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend an interim urgency ordinance to
impose a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of application for, and the issuance of,
City approvals for any new accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts in order
to allow the City a reasonable amount of time to study the issue and enact appropriate
regulatory and zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, to protect the public health, safety and welfare, California Government
Code Section 65858 authorizes the City to adopt interim urgency ordinances prohibiting
any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal which the City is
studying or considering or intends to study or consider within a reasonable time; and
i
ORDINANCE NO. 94-5
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 36937 and 65858 require that an
interim urgency ordinance be adopted by a four-fifths vote of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council declares that extension of the interim urgency
ordinance imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of
approvals for the construction and development of new accessory structures in rear yards
in residential districts is necessary for the immediate protection of the public welfare, and
hereby finds and determines as follows:
1) The current City code regulating accessory buildings in rear yards in
residential districts allows fourteen (14) foot high structures within five (5)
feet of a side and rear property line.
2) Structures of this height being this close to the property line has the potential
to significantly impact the adjacent properties.
3) The City's Municipal Code must be amended so as to adequately address
the regulation of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts.
4) The City's Zoning Ordinance Review Committee is presently reviewing the
existing City ordinance which regulates accessory buildings in residential
districts and has indicated that it needs more time to adequately study the
issue.
5) Accepting applications and issuing approvals for the construction and
development of accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts under
the existing ordinance provisions could result in negative aesthetic affects
and lower property values for the surrounding properties and the community
as a whole.
6) The City Council desires to minimize and control these negative effects, and
thereby protect the welfare of the residents of the City; preserve the quality
of life in the community; and preserve the property values and the character
of the neighborhoods surrounding potential accessory buildings in rear yards
of residential districts.
2
e
ORDINANCE NO. 945
7) Unless the City adopts an interim urgency ordinance to impose a temporary
moratorium on the acceptance of applications and the issuance of approvals
for accessory buildings in rear yards in residential districts in the City, the
additional construction and development of accessory buildings in rear yards
in residential districts in the City may result in negative aesthetic impacts and
lower property values in the community.
Section 2. Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Government Code
Section 65858, the City Council hereby extends the moratorium established by Ordinance
No. 944 for a period of thirty (30)additional days on the acceptance of applications and the
issuance of approvals for the construction and development of accessory buildings in rear
yards in residential districts in the City.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by a four-
fifths vote of the City Council.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Sun, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
City of Palm Desert, California
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Sun, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated within the City of Palm Desert.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD A. CRITES, Mayor
City of Palm Desert, California
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3