HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 01-82 DWELLING SIZE 1982 7 .
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: April 20, 1982
CASE NO: ZOA 01-82
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Revising the City's minimum area requirements for residential
structures.
INITIATED BY: CITY OF PALM DESERT
I. DISCUSSION:
At its joint study session with the City Council on March 16, 1982, one of the
topics of discussion was the present minimum size requirements. The result of that
discussion was that staff be given authorization to revise Section 25.56.320 of the
Zoning Ordinance to:
1. Permit studio apartments with a minimum area of 450 sq.ft.
2. Reduce the required minimum dwelling unit size in the RE zone to 1000
sq.ft.
3. Permit the Design Review Board or Planning Commission to approve units
below the required minimums in the multi-residential districts under special
circumstances.
The proposed revisions would amend the current code to read as follows:
25.04.108 Bachelor or studio apartments. An apartment consisting of a combined
room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking.
25.56.320 Minimum residential structure size area.
A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area,
exclusive of unroofed portions and garages seboet to the €ellew4Rg ebaFt as follows:
TYPE OF DWELLING MINIMUM SIZE AREA IN SQ.FT. BY ZONE
Single-Family and
Condominiums 1000 R1, PR, R2, RE
144R. dwelling size 1250 R1-10,000 to R1-14,000
1500 R1-15,000
2999 RE
MULTIPLE UNITS - NON-CONDOMINIUMS
Studio unit 450
One Bedroom dwelling 600
Two Bedroom dwe4li.Rg 800
Three Bedroom 9welliRg 1200
B. The standards may be increased by the design review process or the planning
commission based upon:
1. Usability of the dwelling by the ultimate occupants;
2. Compatibility of the dwelling to the neighborhoods.
C. Multiple units-noncondominiums in multiple residential zones may be
decreased by the design review process or the planning commission based upon:
1. Efficiency of unit design;
2. Usability of the unit by the ultimate occupants;
3. Compatibility of the dwelling to the area.
-1-
J f
Staff Report
ZOA 01-82
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the proposed
amendment is a minor revision to land use regulations and is therefore a class 5
categorical exemption, for purposes of CEQA.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend to the Commission that it adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. , revising the minimum area requirements for residential
units.
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, recommending to the City
Council approval of an amendment to the Municipal Code
Sections 25.04.108 and 25.56.320 concerning revision
of the City's minimum area requirements for residential
structures and defining bachelor or studio apartments."
Ar
-2-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 794
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
25.04.108 AND 25.56.320 CONCERNING REVISION OF
THE CITY'S MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, AND DEFINING
BACHELOR OR STUDIO APARTMENTS, A CLASS 5
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA.
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
0
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, did on the 2nd
day of February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to
Section 25.56.320 concerning minimum residential unit area requirements;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did on the 20th
day of April, 1982, hold a second duly public hearing on said proposed revision;
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California of Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89, in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to
be a class 5 categorical exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify their recommendations 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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
1 health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the Commission in these cases;
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, by revising
the minimum area requirements for residential structures.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of April, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, MILLER, WOOD, KRYDER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: RICHARDS
ABSTAIN: NONE
GEORGE D. KRYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/lr
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 794
EXHIBIT "A"
25.04.108 Bachelor or studio apartments. An apartment consisting of a combined
room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking.
25.56.320 Minimum residential structure size area.
A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area, 1
exclusive of unroofed portions and garages seb*et to the €e€lewfag ehaFt as follows:
TYPE QP DWELLING M€NIMWM S€Z€ AREA IN SQ.FT. BY ZONE
Single-Family and
Condominiums 1000 R1, PR, R2, RE
Mfav dwelling size 1250 R1-10,000 to R1-14,000
1500 R1-15,000
29QQ R€
MULTIPLE UNITS - NON-CONDOMINIUMS
Studio unit 450
One Bedroom dwe4irag 600
Two Bedroom dwehliag 800
Three Bedroom dweliiag 1200
B. The standards may be increased by the design review process or the planning
commission based upon:
1. Usability of the dwelling by the ultimate occupants;
2. Compatibility of the dwelling to the neighborhoods.
C. Multiple units-noncondominiums in multiple residential zones may be
decreased by the design review process or the planning commission based upon:
.J
1. Efficiency of unit design;
2. Usability of the unit by the ultimate occupants;
3. Compatibility of the dwelling to the area.
r
ORDINANCE NO: 297
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REVISING THE CITY'S
MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE AND DEFINING BACHELOR OR STUDIO
APARTMENTS.
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
13th day of May, 1982, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider amendments to
Section 25.56.320 concerning minimum residential unit area requirements.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 794, has
recommended approval; and,
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined 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 persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to approve the Ordinance Amendment.
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.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better
serve the public health, safety, and general welfare,
than the current regulations.
i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute
the considerations of the Council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled
Exhibit "A", to amend Municipal Code Section Chapter 25.56.
3. The City Clerk is directed to publish this Ordinance once in the
Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published
and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to
the passage of adoption of this Ordinance, and the same shall be
in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 2nth day of May lgp2 by the following vote to
wit:
AYES: McPherson, Newbrander, Puluqi & Wilson
NOES: Snyder
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Za
TEST:
1
SHEILA R. GILL'IGAN, Cit Jerk
City of Palm Desert, Cali nia
/pa
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 297
EXHIBIT "A"
25.04.108 Bachelor or studio apartments. An apartment consisting of a combined
room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking.
25.56.320 Minimum residential structure area.
A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area,
exclusive of unroofed portions and garages as follows:
DWELLING AREA IN SQ.FT. BY ZONE
Single-Family and
Condominiums 1000 RI, PR, R2, RE
1250 R1-10,000 to R1-14,000
1500 R1-15,000
MULTIPLE UNITS - NON-CONDOMINIUMS
Studio unit 450
One Bedroom 600
Two Bedroom 800
Three Bedroom 1200
B. The standards may be increased by the design review process or the planning
commission based upon:
1. Usability of the dwelling by the ultimate occupants;
2. Compatibility of the dwelling to the neighborhoods.
C. Multiple units-noncondominiums in multiple residential zones may be
decreased by the design review process or the planning commission based upon:
1. Efficiency of unit design;
2. Usability of the unit by the ultimate occupants;
3. Compatibility of the dwelling to the area.
L
r
I
I
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance revising the
City's minimum area requirements for residential structures.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 01-82
DATE: May 13, 1982
CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation.
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No.
D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 01-82.
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 794.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 20, 1982.
G. Related maps and/or exhibits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. to second reading.
B. DISCUSSION:
At the joint City Council-Planning Commission session on March 16, 1982, one of
the topics of discussion was the present minimum size requirements. The result of
that discussion was that staff be given authorization to revise Section 25.56.320 of
the Zoning Ordinance to:
1. Permit studio apartments with a minimum area of 450 square feet.
2. Reduce the required minimum dwelling unit size in the RE zone to
1,000 square feet.
3. Permit the Design Review Board or Planning Commission to approve
units below the required minimums in the multi-residential districts
under special circumstances.
The revised Ordinance was presented to Planning Commission at its April 20, 1982,
meeting. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposed ordinance revision
during the Planning Commission public hearing.
The Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 794 recommending approval
of the amendment to the minimum area requirements for residential structures by
the following vote. (4-0) with Richards absent.
/pa
4 y
MINUTES '
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 1982
VIL PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case No. GPA 01-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Consideration of an amendment to the circulation element
of the City General Plan to delete a portion of Magnesia
Falls Drive, between Deep Canyon Road and Cook Street.
Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report stating that this portion of the street and
bikeway is not necessary to provide adequate traffic circulation and would provide an
unsafe situation at Cook Street. Staff recommended deleting portion of the future
Magnesia Falls Drive.
Commissioner Crites pointed out that it could be better to have a road going from
the proposed park and sports complex, along Magnesia Falls Drive, to the community park,
rather than sending traffic out to Cook to Fred Waring Drive.
Mr. Diaz explained that if the road was to remain it would have to serve as a
secondary roadway and be the width of Magnesia Falls; he felt that the joint use and
compatibility with the proposed high school would be inconsistent; and, he felt that the
number of people that would be affected from this would be minimal as compared to the
disadvantages of construction of the road.
Commissioner Crites believed that it would take congested traffic off of the
corner of Cook and Fred Waring Drive and the road would serve as a safety valve.
Commissioner Wood stated that a recommendation of the Beautification
Committee was to slow traffic down on secondary and major roads.
This matter was further discussed with Mr. McClellan explaining that in order to
provide adequate sight distance for Magnesia Falls Drive at Cook Street, the road would
have to be shifted south, running between the sports complex and the proposed high
school. He further stated that the width of the road would have to be 88 feet.
Mr. Diaz further explained that the impact it would create far out-weighs the
inconvenience to some people.
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Crites asked if the road could be put back in after the sports
complex and high school are developed. Mr. Diaz replied that it could but if it is retained
at this time before the sports complex and high school are developed extensive changes to
the sports complex plans would be necessary.
Mr. Diaz further explained that when the property to the west of the school site
develops they might want additional access through their development, and then this
matter could be brought up again.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to waive further
reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 793, recommending approval of
GPA 01-82. Carried unanimously 4-0.
B. Case No. ZOA 01-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
revising the City's minimum area requirements for
residential structures.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and noted two changes to the proposed Exhibit
"A": under AREA IN SQ.FT. BY ZONE for Condominiums, it should read R-1 10,000 to R-1
14,000 rather than R-1 1,000 to R-1 14,000; -and, for multiple units noncondominiums
-2-
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 1982
under studio units, it should start with "one bedroom". Staff recommended approval of
proposed Exhibit, section A and B, of the amendment.
Chairman Kryder asked if this would impact any apartment units that might be
converted to condominiums in relation to minimum square feet. Mr. Diaz replied that it
may necessitate combining of two units into one unit.
Commissioner Crites asked what was staff's recommendation for section "C" of the
Exhibit, which states that noncondominium units may be decreased by Design Review
process or Planning Commission. Mr. Diaz explained that this was an option for the
Commission to take.
Commission agreed to retain Section "C" of the Exhibit.
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to waive further
reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 794, as amended, recommending
approval of ZOA 01-82. Carried unanimously 4-0.
C. Case No. ZOA 03-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
revising maximum noise levels in the C-1 zone.
Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and recommended approval of this amendment
to decrease the allowable noise level increase for a C-1 use from 65 dB(A) to 5 dB(A)
above ambient noise level.
In response to a question by Chairman Kryder, staff noted that a 65 dB(A) CNEL
noise level is an average noise level over 24 hours that generally could be compared with
heavy traffic noise on a commercial street such as Highway 111.
i
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to waive further
reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 795, recommending approval of
ZOA 03-82. Carried unanimously 4-0.
D. Case No. ZOA 10-81, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
establishing a Precise Plan requirement.
Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and stated that this request is to establish a
precise plan for the R-3 and Commercial zones. Staff recommended approval.
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to waive further
reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 796, recommending ZOA 10-81.
Carried unanimously 4-0.
VIII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS:
Preliminary plan approvals by the Design Review Board at its meeting of April 13,
1982, requiring Planning Commission confirmation.
-3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 794
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS
25.04.108 AND 25.56.320 CONCERNING REVISION OF
THE CITY'S MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, AND DEFINING
BACHELOR OR STUDIO APARTMENTS, A CLASS 5
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA.
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, did on the 2nd
day of February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to
Section 25.56.320 concerning minimum residential unit area requirements;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert did on the 20th
day of April, 1982, hold a second duly public hearing on said proposed revision;
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California of Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89, in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to
be a class 5 categorical exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and.
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify their recommendations 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.
a
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, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the Commission in these cases;
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, by revising
the minimum area requirements for residential structures.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of April, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, MILLER, WOOD, KRYDER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: RICHARDS
ABSTAIN: NONE
Y
GEORGE D. KRYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/Ir
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 794
EXHIBIT "A"
25.04.108 Bachelor or studio apartments. An apartment consisting of a combined
room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking.
25.56.320 Minimum residential structure size area. _
A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area,
exclusive of unroofed portions and garages sebjee# to the €ellewiRg sbaFE as follows:
TYPE QP DWELLING MINIMUM SIZE AREA IN SQ.FT. BY ZONE
Single-Family and
Condominiums 1000 R1, PR, R2, RE
MiR. dwelling size 1250 R1-10,000 to R1-14,000
1500 R1-15,000
2999 R€
MULTIPLE UNITS - NON-CONDOMINIUMS
Studio unit 450
One Bedroom dwelling 600
Two Bedroom dwe44Rg 800
Three Bedroom dwelling 1200
B. The standards may be increased by the design review process or the planning
commission based upon:
1. Usability of the dwelling by the ultimate occupants;
2. Compatibility of the dwelling to the neighborhoods.
C. Multiple units-noncondominiums in multiple residential zones may be
decreased by the design review process or the planning commission based upon:
1. Efficiency of unit design;
2. Usability of the unit by the ultimate occupants;
3. Compatibility of the dwelling to the area.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
( 20109 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL NOTICE
ZOA 01-82
I am a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years, and not
a party to or interested in the CITY OF PALM DESERT
above entitled matter . I am the LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.ZOA 01-92
principal cleric of the printer NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-
EN that a Public Hearing will
of THE DESERT POSTS be held before the Palm De-
cons Planning
g Commission
quest si iho
a newspaper of general C1rCV la- CITY OF PALM DESERT for
tion, printed and published weekly a Zoning Ordinance Amend-
ment relating to the minimum
in the city of Riverside., County dwellino unit size.
SAID Public Hearing will be
of Riversides and which newspaper held an Aoril 20, 1M, at 2:00M.,In the Council Chambers
,1
has been adjudged a newspaper of Fn the Palm Desert City.Hall,
45-275 Prickly Pear; Lone,
general circulation by the whic,tlimeaarndul°ace°oii°aea-
t
Superior Court of the County of ested persons are invlt ot-
tend and be heard. u'
Riverside, State of Californian RAMON A. DIAZ
Secretory '1-y'.'
under date of October 51 19649 PoIM Desert Planning
Commission
Case number 83658; that the PPP-4ue.
notices of which the annexed is
a printed copys has been published
in each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates to-wit :
04/8 91982
I Certify (or declare) under
Penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated April 89 1982
at Riverside, California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
April 22, 1982
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA O1-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment relating to the minimum dwelling unit size.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on May 13, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which
time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
April 29, 1982
/Pa
April 1, 1982
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment relating to the minimum dwelling unit size.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on April 20, 1982, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers
in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which
time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
April 8, 1982
/pa
Y
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2, 1982
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and invited input from the applicant.
MR. FRANZ TIRRE, Applicant, 46-333 Burroweed Lane, stated he had no
objections to the conditions and requested approval.
Chairman Kryder invited input in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request. There
being none, the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt
findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to waive
further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 778, approving CUP 15-80
(Renewal), as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0.
D. Case No. CUP 02-82 - DAVID HEUSINKVELD, Applicant
Request for approval to renew a CUP and Variance to
convert a nine unit apartment complex to "nonstatutory"
condominiums of approximately 1000 sq.ft. each on
approximately .7 gross acres within the R-3 13,000 (3) zone
generally located on the south side of Shadow Mountain
Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Larkspur Lane.
Mr. Smith reviewed the staff report and recommended approval.
Commissioner Wood asked if the building meets current code requirements. Mr.
Smith replied affirmative.
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and invited input in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to this request. There being none, the public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt
findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to waive
further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 779, approving CUP 02-82.
Carried unanimously 5-0.
Case No. ZOA 01-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Consideration of an amendment to Section 25.56.320 of the
Municipal Code to permit the construction of studio
apartments and to permit the relocation within the City of
existing legal nonconforming apartment units.
Mr. Diaz stated that as a result of a previous variance application Commission
instructed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment allowing studio apartments in the
City and relocation of existing legal nonconforming structures. The proposed amendments
included: definition of a bachelor or studio apartment; minimum residential structure
size, including a minimum unit size of 450 sq.ft. for a bachelor or studio apartment; and,
relocation of legal nonconforming units.
Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and invited input in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to this request. There being none, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Wood felt that it would be inconsistent and incompatible to allow
existing structures to relocate without complying to code requirements. Commissioner
Richards agreed and also felt that this matter should be reviewed jointly with the City
Council.
Commissioner Crites wished to separate the issues and was in favor of adopting
-3-
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2, 1982
amended ordinance to include Sections 25.04.108 (Bachelor or Studio Apartments) and
25.56.320 A (1) (Minimum Residential Structure Size); he was opposed to Section 25.76.120
(Relocation of Legal Nonconforming Units).
Chairman Kryder wished to continue the whole matter until a joint session with
City Council can be arranged for review.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue
Section 25.04.108 (Bachelor or Studio Apts); continue Section 25.56.320 (Minimum
Residential Structure Size) indefinitely to permit discussion with Council; and, deny
Section 25.76.120 (Relocation of Legal Nonconforming Units). Carried unanimously 5-0.
VIll. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS
Preliminary plan approvals by the Design Review Board at its meeting of January
26, 1982, requiring Planning Commission confirmation.
A. Case No. 112 C - CHARLES GIBBS - Preliminary and final approval to add a
mini-storage building to an existing facility located at the northeast corner
of 42nd Avenue and Eclectic Street.
Mr. Smith reviewed the plans and recommended approval.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve
Design Review Board's action by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 780.
Carried unanimously 5-0.
B. Case No. 159 C - T.G.I. FRIDAYS, INC. - Preliminary approval of plans for
a restaurant building including usage of red and white awnings.
Mr. Smith stated that because Commission had some concern about the red and
white awning this matter was continued from the last meeting for further study. Staff
recommended approval.
MR. TOM HOOLIHAN, Applicant, was present and gave a brief presentation and
distributed pictures of existing restaurants. He explained that the awning is a trademark
of the restaurant.
After reviewing the site and information presented by the applicant the
Commission felt the plans were acceptable.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the
Design Review Board's action for 159 C by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 781. Carried unanimously 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE
X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
XI. COMMENTS
Mr. Diaz reviewed items presented to City Council:
A. Amusement Arcades (Straw Hat) - City Council instructed staff to define
arcades and prepare an Ordinance regulating their use; staff prepared report
defining 3 or more machines would constitute arcade.
B. Hillside Overlay - City Council recommended a joint meeting with Planning
Commission on this matter. Meeting will be set.
C. Subdivision Ordinance revisions - staff ' is proceeding with proposed
amendments.
-4-
S
E '
City of Palm Desert
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 2, 1982
CASE NO: ZOA 01-82
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:Minimum Dwelling Unit Sizes
INITIATED BY: Planning Commission
I. DISCUSSION:
Planning Commission at its January 5, 1982, meeting reviewed a variance
application by C.G.O. Enterprises. At that time, the matter of "Minimum Dwelling
Unit Size" came under scrutiny. In the end Planning Commission by resolution,
instructed Staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow studio apartments
and to permit the relocation of existing legal non-conforming units (ie: those units
below the minimum unit size) within the City. Added clarification by Planning
Commission requested a full discussion by Staff of the pros and cons of the existing
unit size limits.
Draft ordinance amendments are attached and should the Commission decide to
recommend approval of same to the City Council, they will be forwarded.
Studio or Bachelor Apartments:
It is felt necessary that studio or bachelor apartments should be defined and a
minimum size limit established. It is suggested that the size limit be a minimum of
500 or 450 square feet. The suggested definition would be as follows: "An
Apartment Consisting of a Combined Room for Living and Sleeping and a Separate
Room for Cooking".
Planning Commission may wish to discuss the merits of larger or smaller unit sizes
and the definition proposed.
Movement of Existin Le al Non-conformingUnits (ie: Those Units Below the
Minimum Unit Size Within the City:
It was Commission's instruction to Staff to prepare an amendment to permit the
movement of existing legal non-conforming units within the City. As a point of
clarification, Staff wishes to know if this applies only to apartment units or to all
residential units. Secondly, the Commission may wish to consider discussing
whether this waiver will also apply to damaged or destroyed buildings. Presently a
non-conforming building damaged to less than 150% of its assessed value, may be
restored to its original state. If the damage exceeds 150%, then the replaced
structure must comply with the Zoning Ordinace in all respects.
Pros and Cons of Existing Size Limits:
In preparing this report, Staff reviewed the 1975 minutes of Planning Commission
and City Council meetings relating to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, to
attempt to determine the rationale behind the standards which were adopted. The
only specific item contained in the minutes related to studio apartments. It was
indicated that they (studio apartments) would be required to conform to the same
standards as one bedroom units (ie: 600 square feet). Unfortunately, this
clarification was omitted from the Ordinance when it was adopted.
Further investigation of the 1974 and 1975 files indicates that the draft ordinance
of December, 1974, had no provisions relating to minimum dwelling unit sizes.
Subsequently a draft ordinance dated January, 1975, did have a requirement of 750
square feet for single family dwellings and 1,000 square feet for condominiums.
- 1 -
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
FEBRUARY 2, 1982
Pros and Cons of Existing Size Limits (Continued)
These minimums could be increased or decreased by the Design Review Process or
Planning Commission, based on usability of the unit and compatibility within the
neighborhood.
An April, 1975, memo from the Building Official to the Director of Environmental
Services would appear to be the basis of the present ordinance requirements (copy
of memo attached). This memo is the first instance where the number of bedrooms
became the determining factor for minimum unit size for apartments. No reason
was cited for relating unit size to the number of bedrooms. However, there was
considerable discussion regarding the installation of clothes closets. The opening
sentence of the memo states that provisions stated below and ultimately adopted
"are an average or equitable size".
It is interesting to note that although the code controls unit sizes in apartments by
the number of bedrooms, at no point in the code is a bedroom defined. What the
difference is between a den which may happen to have a storage closet and a
bedroom with a clothes closet is not clear. The current City minimum requirements
are delineated below:
25.56.320 Minimum Residential Structure Size. (Existing Requirements)
A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area,
exclusive of unroofed portions and garages subject to the following chart:
Type of Dwelling Minimum Size in Square Feet and Zone
Single Family and Condominiums -
Minimum Dwelling Size: 1,000 R-1 and PR
1,250 R-1-10-14
1,500 R-1-15
2,000 RE
Multiple Units:
One bedroom dwelling 600
Two bedroom dwelling 800
Three bedroom dwelling 1,200
B. The standards may be increased by the Design Review Process or the Planning
Commission based upon:
1. Usability of the dwelling by the ultimate occupants;
2. Compatibility of the dwelling to the neighborhoods. (Ord. 128$7 (part), 1976:
Ord. 98 §1 (part), December 11,1975: Exhibit A §25.32-8.01).
An examination of the existing minimum requirements results in many questions.
One set of standards is used for single family and condominiums and another set for
multiple units.
Policy has been to apply multiple unit standards only to rental units (apartments).
Why there is a different standard for condominiums as opposed to rental units is
not known. Considering the City's position with respect to providing "Housing for
all Economic Segments of the Community" as provided in the Housing Element,
then it may be appropriate to treat condominiums the same as apartment units.
Should two bedroom condominium units of 800 square feet or one bedroom
condominium units of 600 square feet be permitted?
The minimum requirements for single family dwellings is related to the zone in
which the property is located and ultimately to the lot size.
- 2 -
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
FEBRUARY 2, 1982
25.56.320 Minimum Residential Structure Size (Existing Requirements) (Continued)
The bigger the lot the bigger the required dwelling unit must be. The problem with
this method is that a citizen who may own a large lot will be required to construct
a proportionally larger home than the person owning a smaller lot.
This is then a problem for a retired person who may wish to construct a small home
and yet have a large lot on which to pass the time performing landscape
maintenance, etc; the owner also faces higher costs to run the larger home,
particularly with respect to air conditioning and heating costs.
Planning Commission may wish to discuss the compatibility aspect of having just
one minimum requirement for all single family dwellings, say 1,000 square
feet.Would it be a problem allowing a 1,000 square foot unit next to an existing
3,000 square foot home considering that the present standards may require a
minimum 1,500 square foot unit?
Does the requirement for the extra 500 square feet affect the overall development
of the neighborhood? If it does, can these problems be mitigated through the
Design Review Process (ie: Extra Landscaping, Special Orientation of the Unit on
the Lot)?
In the Residential Estate (RE) zone, development standards vary according to the
parcel size (ie: greater than 5 acres, between 1 acre and 5 acres and less than 1
acre). In all instances however, the minimum unit size is limited to 2,000 square
feet. This minimum may be adjusted by Planning Commission through the
conditional use permit process. The (RE) zone only exists in the Hillside area and
the reason for the large lots is due to the great extent of unusable slope area. In
some instances due to the restricted amount of grading permitted, it is difficult to
find enough room to place a house large enough to meet the minimum unit size
prescribed.
Should the owner be required to request a reduction in the minimum unit size in his
conditional use permit application, or would it be appropriate to apply a city-wide
minimum for single family units which would also apply in this instance?
II. CONCLUSION:
The purpose of this report is to make Commission aware of the existing standards
related to minimum dwelling unit size. In addition, Staff has attempted to
demonstrate the lack of clarity with the existing standards. They were not, insofar
as Staff could determine, developed as a result of any long, exhaustive and
comprehensive analysis. Rather the standards prescribed represented "An Average
or Equitable Size".
Staff would also like to to generate discussion by Planning Commission and allow it
to make a suitable determination and recommendation to City Council.
III. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Memo dated April 7, 1975
B. Draft Resolution
Prepared by: D
Reviewed and approved by:
/pa
- 3 -
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Paul A. Williams , Director of Environmental Services
FROM: James L. Hill , Building Official
SUBJECT: Minimum Square Footage for DATE: 4/7/75
Apartments , Including Bachelor,
1 Bedroom, 2 Bedroom, 3 Bedroom,
Single Family Dwelling and
Condominium Square Footages on 2 ,
3 and 4 Bedroom Dwellings
As discussed with you on April 4 , 1975 , the following. minimum
square footages in my opinion are an average or equitable size
as indicated for both multiple dwellings and single family
condominium units .
Multiple Units :
_��te�e� e€f•�crexzrr—�stz#t k�—»��e €eet �...i�i�)
1 bedroom apartment - 600 square feet
r 2 bedroom apartment - 800 square feet
3 bedroom apartment - 1200 square feet
Single Family Residential and Condominiums :
2—bedseaa�d:re]�ing - 1000 square feet_ s�
3 bedroom dwelling - 1300 square feet
4 bedroom dwelling - 1500 square feet
q
Consideration should be given and allowances considered for family
rooms , whereby the number of bedrooms plus a family room would
increase considerably the square footage of the premise or premises .
In some cases , family rooms may be considered guest bedrooms with
wardrobe and clothes closet installations indicated.
We in the Building Division feel that a family room should not
include wardrobe and clothes closets since the implied design
suggests additional sleeping quarters . This is not to restrict
additional guest sleeping quarters , but to designate the difference
between 2 bedroom and a family room or den and a 3 bedroom dwelling .
In many cases , builders will attempt to build footages based upon
2 bedrooms , then add a den or family room with wardrobe and/or
closet, thereby retaining a minimum square footage. Yet the sales
appeal is considered as a 3 bedroom.
Page 2
April 7 , 1975
Other factors may be considered such as large dwelling areas which
would balloon or build up square footages . But in my opinion, the
footages outlined above should be minimum.
-.-A � , . I , 6-,t� �
Jams i
Building Official
JLH: dja
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.04.108 ADDING A
DEFINITION FOR BACHELOR OR STUDIO
APARTMENTS, SECTION 25.56.320 PERMITTING
BACHELOR OR STUDIO APARTMENTS AND ADDING
SECTION 25.76.120 PERMITTING THE RELOCATION OF
LEGAL NON-CONFORMING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY, A
CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES
OF CEQA.
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 2nd day of February, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments
to Section 25.04, 25.56 and 25.76, concerning bachelor and studio apartments and the
relocation of legal non-conforming units (ie: existing units below the minimum unit size
provisions of Section 25.56.320) within the City.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to
be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify their recommendations 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.
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, 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 by adding a definition for
bachelor or studio apartments, permitting bachelor or studio apartments and
providing for the relocation of legal non-conforming units.(ie: existing units
below the minimum unit size provisions).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of February, 1982, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES: ,
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GEORGE D. KRYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/pa
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO:
EXHIBIT "A"
CASE NO. ZOA O1-82
25.04.108 Bachelor or Studio Apartments. An apartment consisting of a combined room
for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking.
25.56.320 A (1) MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SIZE. In addition to the standards
prescribed in Section 25.56.320 A, a bachelor or studio apartment shall be permitted
having a minimum unit size of 450 square feet.
25.76.120 Relocation of Legal Non-Conforming Units. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, nothing shall prevent the relocation of legal non-conforming units (ie:
existing units below the minimum unit size provisions of Section 25.56.320) from one
location in the City to another location within the City.
/pa
- 2 -
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
( 20101 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
LEGAL NOTICE
01-82
I am a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid: I am over the
age of eighteen years, and not
CITY OF DESERT
a party to or interested in the ` LEGAL
-L•n1 AMENDMNT TO
SEC-
above entitled matter. I am the ANION25.56.710oFTHEMU-
principal clerk of the printer NICIPAL CODE TO, PER-
MIT STUDIO' APART-
of THE DESERT POSTS TIHETRELOCATION'YVITH
a newspaper of N THE CITY, ORM�XIST-
general circula— ING LEGAL NbN-coN-
tion, printed and published weekly FORMING APARTMENT
CASE NO,IZOAg1-l2
in the city of Riversides County NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV-
of Riversides and which newspaper be held °neforl ic "�meOfvolimpDng w
has been adjudged a newspaper of consider on Omendment. to
general circulation by the Section 25.S6.=of the Munlq-
pal Code to permit the con
mft
Superior Court of the County of and ro0°peOr�mhh the relocation
within the CltYtof ExistingjJ v
Riversides State of Californian gal nonconformin rtm /r
under date of October 5s 1964, minimuy uthonit,sizee)i°Iwhicchh
Case number 83658; that the °fSAAIIDlMcHeari gwwiiNbe
notices of which the annexed is 7:000p.imeeCoouuary ncil'
Cham-
bers In the Palm Desert City,
a printed COpys has been published Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear
in each regular and entire issue Lane, Palm Desert,'Colifor-
1
n a l Interested persons are In-
vited at which time and place
of said newspaper and not in any sited to attend and be heard.
supplement thereof on the foil owl hg ` RAMON A. DIAZ, SecretaryPalm Desert Planning
dates, to-wit: I Commission PDP-1/21
Oli21 s1982 III
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated January 219 1982
at Riversides California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.56.320 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT STUDIO APARTMENTS
AND TO PERMIT THE RELOCATION WITHIN THE CITY
OF EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING APARTMENT
UNITS .
CASE NO. ZOA 01-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider an amendment to Section 25.56.320 of the Municipal
Code to permit the construction of studio apartments and to permit the relocation within
the City of existing legal non-conforming apartment units Qe: those units below the
minimum unit size) which presently exist within the City.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on February 2, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post
January 21, 1982
/pa