Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 04-83 CONDO STANDARDS 1983 ORDINANCE NO. 337 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT. CASE NO. ZOA 04-83 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of May, 1983, and 26th day of May, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing, to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance, Sections 25.04.108, 25.56.320 and 25.58.300 i modifying minimum floor areas and parking requirements for condominiums. WHEREAS, the Palm Desert Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 852, has recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedufes 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 Case No. ZOA 04-83. 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. 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". 3. The city clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the 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. i PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 9th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, PULUQI, SNYDER, WILSON NOES: NONE i ABSENT: NONE ._> ABSTAIN: NONE 'IrOMEO S. PULUQI, Mayor (ATTEST: SHEILA R. GI _ IGAN, Cit Jerk '4�i r; ` City'of'Palm Desert, Cal' nia 4 f %pa ORDINANCE NO. 337 EXHIBIT "A" AMEND TO READ: 25.58.300 Residential off-street parking schedule. In any district where a residential use is permitted, off-street public parking for residential uses shall be in conformity with the following requirements unless otherwise specified in any approved planned development district: A. Single-family parking requirements (conventional detached or mobile homes), two parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be required. B. Apartment parking space requirements: 1. Studio one-bedroom unit 2.0 per unit 2. Two-bedroom or larger units 2.0 per unit C. Condominium and cluster units: 1. Studio and one-bedroom 2.0 per unit one space covered 2. Two-bedroom and larger 2.5 per unit two spaces covered 25.04.108 Bachelor or studio unit. A dwelling unit consisting of a combined room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking. 25.56.320 Minimum residential structure size. A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area, exclusive of unroofed portions and garages as follows: Dwelling Area in square feet by Zone Single-family 1,000 R-1, PR, R-2, RE detached 1,250 R-1. 10,000 to R-1 14,000 1,500 R-1 15,000 Multiple Units - Apartments, Duplexes and Condominiums Studio unit 600 One bedroom 600 Two bedroom 800 Three bedroom 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. Comptability of the dwelling to the neighborhoods. C. Multiple units - 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. (Ord. 297 (part), 1982: Ord. 128 § 7 (part), 1976: Ord. 98 S 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A Sy 25.32- 8.01) 1 Y PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 852 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT. CASE NO. ZOA 04-83 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of April, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to ¢ zoning ordinance Sections 25.04.108, 25.56.320 and 25.58.300 modifying minimum floor f ' areas and parking requirements for condominiums. WHEREAS, said application has complied 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 that the project is a Class 5 categorical exemption. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as foil^ws: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of April, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, RICHARDS, WOOD NOES: KRYDER ABSENT: DOWNS ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: 3 RAMON A. DIAZ;Secretary Ar PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 852 EXHIBIT "A" AMEND TO READ: 25.58.300 Residential off-street parking schedule. In any district where a residential use is permitted, off-street public parking for residential uses shall be in conformity with the following requirements unless otherwise specified in any approved planned development district: A. Single-family parking requirements (conventional detached or mobile homes), two parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be required. B. Apartment parking space requirements: 1. Studio one-bedroom unit 1.5 per unit 2. Two-bedroom or larger units 2.0 per unit C. Condominium and cluster units: 1. Studio and one-bedroom 1.5 per unit one space covered 2. Two-bedroom and larger 2.5 per unit two spaces covered On-street parking on private streets within a condominium development may be counted toward the uncovered parking requirements. 25.04.108 Bachelor or studio unit. AR apaFtMeRti A dwelling unit consisting of a combined room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking. 25.56.320 Minimum residential structure size. l A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area, exclusive of unroofed portions and garages as follows: Dwelling Area in square feet by Zone Single-family and 1,000 R-1, PR, R-2, RE eeRdemiRtdms detached .1,250 R-1 10,000 to R-1 14,000 1,500 R-1 15,000 Multiple Units - Apartments, Duplexes and Condominiums Studio unit 450 One bedroom 600 Two bedroom 800 Three bedroom 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. Comptability of the dwelling to the neighborhoods. C. Multiple units - ReReeRderfltRiums 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. (Ord. 297 (part), 1982: Ord. 128 S7 (part), 1976: Ord. 98 S1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A 525.32- 8.01) t -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 1983 Chairman Wood opened the public hearing. MR. DENNIS STROUL, installer for Bowman's TV, stated that they were striving to help the city in establishing regulations. He pointed out that 5' diameter dish antennas were possible in the near future and 3' would also be available. As far as the height limitations, he stated that a lot could be done to help reasonably regulate these antennas. For instance, they could be set to blend in with the structure or matched. He also indicated his concerns with the possible hazards involved (i.e. high winds). He concluded with a film showing types of dish antennas and ways they could be hidden from view. Chairman Wood asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case; there being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kryder asked Mr. Stroul if the dish receivers could be set below ground level. Mr. Stroul explained that there was an illumination problem; some dishes could not be set below ground level. Commissioner Kryder felt that perhaps the screen (mesh) antennas would be less visible and more effective during high winds than the solid type. Chairman Wood reopened the public hearing in order to allow further public testimony. MR. KEN BARBIER, Bermuda Dunes, felt that the commission was being misled to believe the smaller sizes of dish antennas would be effective. He explained that one of the reasons for the large size of the dish is because they must have a southern exposure; a 450 tilt is a must in the desert area. He felt that because of this it would present a problem with the proposed restrictions. He further explained that a 10' to 12' diameter dish was also a necessity and a satellite dish could not be placed on a 2.7 degree longitude angle. In regard to the wind load, he stated that every dish has an engineers specification as to what they can withstand. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Crites asked if the antennas needed southern exposure, could the utilization be limited to some purchasers who have homes facing the wrong direction. Mr. Diaz responded that if they could not meet the restrictions (i.e. receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback) then staff and/or architectural commission would attempt to make it as compatible as possible; but they could not deny anyone from installing these antennas. Commissioner Kryder was concerned with allowing the receivers to be placed on the roof in commercial and industrial areas feeling that a conditional use permit should be required. Mr. Diaz stated that the proposed ordinance treats those separately and they would have to go through the architectural commission. Chairman Wood asked staff if neighbors objected to these receivers, could they appeal to the council. Mr. Diaz responded affirmative. Commissioner Kryder felt that if there were groups of neighbors wanting to purchase a receiver together, they should be allowed; also allowing the transmitters to connect from house to house. Mr. Diaz stated that this would require a franchise through the city which would be a long involved process. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 851, recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 12-82; carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. ZOA 04-83 - INITIATED BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT C Consideration of a modification of minimum condominium floor areas and parking requirements. -2- r 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 1983 Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and stated that this amendment would allow studio condominiums with a minimum floor area of 450 sq.ft. and one bedroom condominiums with a minimum floor area of 600 sq.ft; and, establish a parking requirements of 1.5 spaces per unit. Two bedroom condominiums would require 800 sq.ft. with three bedroom condominiums requiring 1200 sq.ft. of floor area. Mr. Drell noted the parking requirements for these units would remain at 2.5 spaces per unit. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Crites asked if the proposed parking ratio was comparable to other cities. Mr. Drell replied affirmative. Commissioner Kryder felt that the smaller units may need more parking spaces than the proposed 1.5. Mr. Drell explained that a study made in the City of Irvine for similar parking requirements showed an average of 1.4 spaces for studio/one bedroom. Chairman Wood asked if the City of Irvine was comparable to the City of Palm Desert. Mr. Drell replied affirmative. Commissioner Crites stated that Commissioner Kryder's concern for parking was justifiable and felt that it would be wise to require excess parking rather than fall short in the future. Commissioner Richards asked what the County of Riverside required. Mr. Drell replied that they required the same as staff was proposing. Commissioner Richards pointed out that the City of Palm Desert had residents of above average age and he has not seen a parking problem in the past. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of this matter. MR. PETE PETASSI, Irvine, architect for Hidden Palms Country Club, stated that the parking ratio in the Hidden Palms area was 1.5 spaces per unit, and has found it to be very adequate. A research study he conducted showed that the requirements for these smaller units was 1 to IYz spaces. He was in favor of the amendment. Commissioner Kryder felt that the parking situation in the Hidden Palms was one of the worse situations he's ever seen. He felt that there were no spaces available between the driveways for homes located in the cul-de-sac areas. He also felt that the service vehicle and guest parking has been a problem. Mr. Petassi responded that each project would be reviewed on its own merits and emphasized that over design of parking spaces would also create problems. MR. GER BRUTAN, 6833 Indiana Ave., Riverside, consulting engineer, pointed out that his experience has shown that the proposed parking ratio has been adequate and felt that too many parking spaces could affect the projects aesthetically. Landscaping as opposed to asphalt should be the objective in a residential project. Commissioner Wood did not agree that added parking meant a loss or trade off of landscaping for asphalt. Mr. Brutan explained that reduction in landscaping would result somewhere in order to provide more parking spaces. He also noted that he's been working with the recommended standards since 1958 and supports them. Commissioner Kryder suggested that density be reduced to mitigate possible parking problems. MR. MIKE GALLAGHER, of McBail Company, stated there was a strong demand for smaller units; he was in favor of the proposed ordinance. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to this matter; there being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Richards felt an increase in the parking requirement was not necessary. He agreed that there would be a trade off in landscaping for asphalt and felt that staff's study was valid. -3- v � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 1983 Commissioner Crites asked what percentage of people responded to the survey and the size of the sample conducted in Irvine. Mr. Drell responded that there were 3000 questionnaires - 300 to 400 for each category (apartments, condominiums, duplexes, single family); approximately 1200 responded. Commissioner Kryder pointed out that some existing developments show a parking shortage and he would like to see a 15 to 20% increase in spaces for extra cars. Commissioner Crites asked staff to explain what the present ordinance allows in terms of vehicle street parking. Mr. Diaz explained that after 72 hours the vehicle must be removed. Chairman Wood agreed that the design of a development was important in relieving parking problems, therefore, favored the ordinance amendment. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 852, recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 04-83; carried 3-1 (Commissioner Kryder voting Nay). It was noted that Commissioner Kryder objected only to the proposed parking ratio and not the amendment to the unit square footage size. THERE WAS A FIVE MINUTE RECESS - THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 3:36 P.M. C. Case No. VAR O1-83 and PP 05-83 - EGS METRO AND C.G. DUNHAM CO., Applicants Request for approval of a precise plan of design, variance for off-street parking and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow the addition of three 5640 square foot commercial buildings to an existing shopping center in the C-1, S.P. zone located at the northwest corner of El Paseo and Larkspur Lane. Mr. Diaz indicated that this development would be located at the back of the Market Basket Center and in describing the elevations stated they would be facing E1 Paseo. The variance was for a 19 to 21% parking deficiency, which included the existing Market Basket Center parking requirements and parking spaces provided. He pointed out that the location of this development would fill a "dead spot" in an area of El Paseo that would encourage pedestrian traffic. He also noted that plans to revitalize the Market Basket Center are have been conceptually approved but are not included as part of this proposal. Mr. Diaz noted a letter from Desert Beautiful supporting this project was received. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Richards asked if the parking lot in front of the former Market Basket, facing the frontage road, would be utilized for this proposed center, which is behind the Market Basket facing El Paseo. Mr. Diaz replied affirmative. Commissioner Richards felt that did not make sense; customers would have to go around the existing building to get to the proposed center. Commissioner Crites asked what the deficiency would be without utilizing that front parking lot. Mr. Diaz stated that with on-street parking 56 could be provided, with 58 being required. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. i MR. SANDY BAUM, 73-241 Highway 111, representative, noted that the developer had agreed to pay for the cost of the median landscaping along El Paseo between San Pablo and Larkspur. In terms of parking, he explained that people will always park where it is convenient, which is why on-street parking occurs. He described the project would have an 'basis" look between the buildings. Commissioner Crites asked what kind of seating would be provided. Mr. Baum explained that he proposed to provide tables and chairs outside between the buildings. -4- a 0 City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 19, 1983 CASE NO: ZOA 04-83 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Modification of condominium minimum floor areas and parking requirements. INITIATED BY: CITY OF PALM DESERT I. BACKGROUND: The Housin Study-Strategies for Palm Desert discussed at the March 17th planning commission city council study session, identified the reduction of condominium floor areas as a means to allow the housing industry to better respond to the market demands for low and moderate income ownership housing. The consensus reached at the meeting was that the present distinction between apartment floor areas versus condominiums had no rational basis. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance amendment creating a uniform standard. U. DISCUSSION• Presently, separate floor area minimum standards are applied to apartment and condominiums. Apartment can range from a 450 sq.ft. studio to 1200 sq.ft. 3 bedroom; condominiums are limited to at least 1000 sq.ft. regardless of bedroom number. While family size, floor plan design, and personal preferences are important factors in the liveability of a particular unit, the form of ownership is irrelevant. A well designed 450 sq.ft. studio provides the same level of comfort and convenience regardless of whether the unit is renter or owner occupied. The proposed amendment will make condominium and duplex floor area minimums identical to present apartment standards. In addition, the parking ordinance will be amended to assign a requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit to the newly allowed studio and one bedroom condominiums. The existing 2.5 space requirement for two bedroom and greater condominiums will remain. At the study session, the issue was raised concerning the relationship between condominium standards and condo conversion of apartments. Since 1980 there have been three conversions within the city. All three involved the same developer and followed an identical pattern. Although approved as rental units, these projects were built to the 1000 sq.ft. condominium standard in anticipation of future conversion. All were luxury two bedroom apartments easily converted to condominiums. Our present regulations did not prevent these conversions but only discouraged the construction of rental units less than 1000 sq.ft. If the supply of low and moderate income rental units is a concern, programs and policies should be initiated to encourage new construction of such rental units. Condominium conversion can be controlled by separate ordinances which resrict conversion when city-wide vacancy rates fall below a specified percentage. Preservation of the rental unit supply should not come at expense of ownership housing opportunities. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , -1- Staff Report ZOA 04-83 April 19, 1983 recommending to the city council approval of ZOA 04-83, amending Section 25.04.108, 25.58.300 and 25.56.320 relating to minimum floor areas and parking requirements for condominiums. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT. CASE NO. ZOA 04-83 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 19th day of April, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to zoning ordinance Sections 25.04.108, 25.56.320 and 25.58.300 modifying minimum floor areas and parking requirements for condominiums. WHEREAS, said application has complied 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 that the project is a Class 5 categorical exemption. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance text 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. 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 considerations of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend a zoning ordinance text amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of April, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" AMEND TO READ: 25.58.300 Residential off-street parking schedule. In any district where a residential use is permitted, off-street public parking for residential uses shall be in conformity with the following requirements unless otherwise specified in any approved planned development district: A. Single-family parking requirements (conventional detached or mobile homes), two parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be required. B. Apartment parking space requirements: 1. Studio one-bedroom unit 1.5 per unit 2. Two-bedroom or larger units 2.0 per unit C. Condominium and cluster units: 1. Studio and one-bedroom 1.5 per unit one space covered 2. Two-bedroom and larger 2.5 per unit two spaces covered On-street parking on private streets within a condominium development may be counted toward the uncovered parking requirements. 25.04.108 Bachelor or studio unit. AR apartment A dwelling unit consisting of a combined room for living and sleeping and a separate room for cooking. 25.56.320 Minimum residential structure size. A. Every dwelling hereafter erected shall have a minimum living floor area, exclusive of unroofed portions and garages as follows: Dwelling Area in square feet by Zone Single-family and 1,000 R-1, PR, R-2, RE eeRdemi-Riums detached 1,250 R-1 10,000 to R-1 14,000 1,500 R-1 15,000 Multiple Units - Apartments, Duplexes and Condominiums Studio unit 450 One bedroom 600 Two bedroom 800 Three bedroom 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. Comptability of the dwelling to the neighborhoods. C. Multiple units - ReReeRd9m44wms 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. tOrd. 297 (part), 1982: Ord. 128 S7 (part), 1976: Ord. 98 81 (part), 1975: Exhibit A 325.32- 8.01) -2- 1 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (20109 2015. 5 CCP) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE Z OA 04-83 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the CITY OF PAL DESERT age of eighteen ASE "0.LEGAL NOTICE g ye arse and not CASE NO. PREBY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- a party to or interested in the EN Mar a public hearina wili be held before the Palm De- above entitled matter. I am the serf Punning Cornmissim 10 consider a r�ea��5s�f ppyy principal clerk of the printer WARD F. REEDTRUST, for approval of a precise Dlan ofo f THE DESERT P 0 S T n design to allow consirgction of a triplex In an R-3 zone WIT newspaper of general circula— pie family residential). for CEOA PUrposes a class three tions printed and published weekly categarlcal exempt ion,located thealmas in the city of Riversides County Avenue 120 feeetalswhsLOSPo San Gorgonio Way more Darticw of Riversides and which newspaper lariv described as. A.P.N. 627-M-016 has been adjudged a newspaper of SAIDPvbtic hearing will be held an II 19, 1983, at 2:ag .general circulation by the pm., i tie aouncii climber a} the Palm Oesecl City Nail, Superior Court of the County of 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California, a{ Riversides State of Californian whichtimeandPlaceallinter- ested persons are Invited to af- under date of October 59 1964s tend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ Case number 83658: that the secretary Desert notices of which the annexed is Planning Cammisslan POP� a printed copys has been published a in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to-wit: 04/8 91983 I Certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated April 89 1983 at Riversides California CITY OF PALM DESERT April 22, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council, to consider amendments to the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance Sections 25.04.108, 25.56.320 and 25.58.300 modifying minimum floor areas and parking requirements for condominiums, a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. SAID public hearing will be held on May 12, 1983, at 7:00 P.M., in the council chamber at 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: Desert Post April 29, 1983 March 31, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 04-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider amendments to zoning ordinance sections 25.04.108, 25.56.320 and 25.58.300 modifying minimum floor areas and parking requirements for condominiums, a class 5 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA. SAID public hearing will be held on April 19, 1983, at 2:00 p.m., in the council chamber at 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: Desert Post April 8, 1983 /pa