HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 05-82 EXPIRATION DATES 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 304
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56.
CASE NO. ZOA 05-82
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
24th day of June, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing, to consider amendments to
Section 25.56.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 801, 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. 80-8911, 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 proposed 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.
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 aprove a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled
Exhibit "A", to amend Municipal Code Section 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 24th day of June, 1982, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: WILSON, McPHERSON, SNYDER, NEWBRANDER, PULUQI
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE .
R WILSON, Mayor
l
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GIL_LiCAN, City
City of Palm Desert, Califo 'a
/Pa
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 304
EXHIBIT "A"
Add:
Section 25.56.480 - Expiration dates of application approvals.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code related thereto, the anniversary date of
any application approvals shall be tied to the effective approval date of the Tentative
Tract Map as processed for that property. When there is no Tentative Tract Map
application involved with a particular property, the anniversary date for determining the
expiration of any application approvals shall be tied to the effective approval date of the
most recently approved application. When there is only an individual application relating
to a particular property, then the expiration date of said application shall be as set forth
in the code relating to that application.
i
May 20, 1982
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 05-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify the provisions
pertaining to expiration dates of applications.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on June 10, 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
May 27, 1982
/pa
s
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 4, 1982
Vice Chairman Richards opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to
speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request. There was none.
Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to continue this
matter to June 1, 1982, to give staff opportunity to contact those property owners that
may be impacted. Carried unanimously 4-0.
Case No. ZOA 05-82, CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to join
together all applications on an individual property for the
purposes of determining the expiration date of said
applications.
Mr. Smith reviewed this request and recommended approval.
Vice Chairman Richards 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. 801, recommending approval of
ZOA 05-82. Carried unanimously 4-0.
VIII. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS - NONE
IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE
X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
XI. COMMENTS - NONE
XH. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Vice Chairman Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adjourn
the meeting at 7:35 P.M.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
ATTEST:
JAMES RICHARDS, Vice Chairman
/Ir
-4-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 801
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIONG COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56.
CASE NO. ZOA 05-82
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 4th day of May, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to
Section 25.56.
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.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recormnend to the City Council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment a.s provided in the attached
Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of May, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, MILLER, RICHARDS, WOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: KRYDER
ABSTAIN: NONE
GEORGE D. KRYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
s
Y
spa
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 801
EXHIBIT "A"
Add:
Section 25.56.480 - Expiration Dates of Application Approvals.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code related thereto, the anniversary date of
any application approvals shall be tied to the effective approval date of the Tentative
Tract Map as processed for that property. When there is no Tentative Tract Map
application involved with a particular property, the anniversary date for determining the
expiration of any application approvals shall be tied to the effective approval date of the
most recently approved application. When there is only an individual application relating
to a particular property, then the expiration date of said application shall be as set forth
in the code relating to that application.
J
- 2 -
M
City of Palm Desert
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: May 4, 1982
CASE NO: ZOA 05-82
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:Request for a zoning ordinance amendment to join together all
applications on an individual property for the purposes of
determining the expiration date of said applications.
INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
In the past few months, staff have processed several applications for development
which had been previously reviewed by the city. Through an unforseen series of
events, the applicant had allowed the application to expire prior to filing a time
extension request.
This problem of failing to file a timely request for extension can be understood
when a single development can require a series of 4 or 5 applications (ie: Change of
Zone, Development Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Design Review Approval,
Conditional Use Permit and Variance), to be approved by the City. Usually the
applications are filed one or two at a time and not all are processed concurrently.
This is because the applicant doesn't wish to place all his eggs in one development
plan. In most cases then, the applicant has a series of applications all approved at
different times. In addition, the Municipal Code provides for different periods of
time before a decision expires for different applications (ie: Tentative Maps - 2
years, Conditional Use Permits - 1 year, Development Plans - 1 year).
These above noted problems were reviewed by Planning Commission at its April 6,
1982, study session at which time staff was instructed to prepare and process a
zoning ordinance text amendment to try and resolve the problem.
II. DISCUSSION:
The basic problem seems to relate to the number of applications and the different
expiration dates for each. The proposed amendment will have the effect of joining
together all applications submitted for an individual property for the purposes of
determining expiration dates.
The proposed ordinance (copy attached) generally provides that the anniversary
date for determining the expiration of any application approvals shall be tied to the
effective approval date of the Tentative Tract Map. When there is no Tentative
Tract Map application involved with a particular property, the anniversary date for
determining the expiration of any application approvals shall be tied to the
effective approval date of the most recently approved application. When there is
only an individual application relating to a particular property, then the expiration
date of any approval shall be as set forth in the code relating to that application.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
The Director of Environmental Services has reviewed the proposed ordinance
amendment and determined it to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for the
purposes of CEQA. No further documentation is necessary.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That Planning Commission recommend approval of a zoning ordinance amendment
to the City Council to join together all applications on an individual property for
the puropose of determining the expiration date of applications.
- 1 -
CASE NO. ZOA 05-92
MAY 4, 1982
V. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
Prepared by:
Reviewed and approved by:
/pa
- 2 -
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO:
-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIONG COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56.
CASE NO. ZOA 05-82
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 4th day of May, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to
Section 25.56.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-8911, 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.
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".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of May, 1982, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
GEORGE D. KRYDER
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/pa
I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ####
EXHIBIT "A"
Add:
Section 25.56.480 - Expiration Dates of Application Approvals.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code related thereto, the anniversary date of
any application approvals shall be tied to the effective approval date of the Tentative
Tract Map as processed for that property. When there is no Tentative Tract Map
application involved with a particular property, the anniversary date for deter mining the
expiration of any application approvals shall be tied to the effective approval date of the
most recently approved application. When there is only an individual application relating
to a particular property, then the expiration date of said application shall be as set forth
in the code relating to that application.
_ 2 _
I
PROOF Ot PUBLICATION
(20109 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
ZOA-05-82
ZOA 05-82
1 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
above entitled matter. I am the
principal clerk of the printer
of THE DESERT POSTS -- ——
a newspaper of general circula-
tions printed and published weeklyCITY
LEGAL NOTICEN DESERT
O ICE
CASEE NO.ZOA W82
in the city of Riversides County NOTICH' IS HEREBY GIV-
EN that a,Pub 1 ling will
of Riversides and which newspaper se held betorei De-
sert PlonningCO 5si5ion to to
has been adjudged a newspaper of consider a zoning dinance
Amendment to modIN the pro-
general circulation by the visions o tolnlnc to e.plro-
tion tlot t,app cfltIons.
Superior Court of the County of SAID Public Hear n9 will be
Pheld.M On MoV 7 at 7:00
Riverside, State of Californian in th in alit C' I1am6ers
under date of October Ss 1964, 4 the Pahl( Lane,
d5-lm PrfC - r Lane,
Palm Deser, ltornia, at
Case number 83658; that the which time, all inter-
notice,,, of which the annexed is esied persons oa in to
Off end and tx hear in 4.g I I
RAMON A. DIAZ�C
a printed copy, has been published Seccerory rS�
Palm De$e(1 a`nflIng
in each regular and entire issue Commis¢toN ': FDP4/22 �
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates,, to-wit:
04/22 s1982
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated April 229 1982
at Riversides California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
May 7, 1982
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 05-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify the provisions
pertaining to expiration dates of applications.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on May 27, 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
May 13, 1982
/pa
April 15, 1982
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 05-82
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to modify the provisions
pertaining to expiration dates of applications.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on May 4, 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
April 22, 1982
/pa
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION (STUDY SESSION)
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DATE: APRIL 6, 1982
TO JOIN TOGETHER ALL APPLICATIONS
ON AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY FOR THE
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE EXPIRATION
DATE OF, THE APPLICATIONS.
DISCUSSION•
In the past few months, staff have processed several applications for development which
had been previously reviewed by the City. Through an unforseen series of events, the
applicant had allowed the application to expire prior to filing a time extension request.
This problem of failing to file a timely request for extension can be understood when a
single development can require a series of 4 or 5 applications (ie: Change of Zone,
Development Plan, Tentative Map, Design Review Approval, Conditional Use Permit and
Variance), to be approved by the City. Usually the applications are filed one or two at a
time and not all are processed concurrently. This is because the applicant doesn't wish to
place all his eggs in one development plan. In most cases then, the applicant has a series
of applications all approved at different times. In addition, the Municipal Code provides
for different periods of time before a decision expires for different applications (ie:
Tentative Maps - 2 years, Conditional Use Permits - 1 year, Development Plans - 1 year).
Therefore, staff is suggesting a code amendment to reduce the confusion on expiration
dates with a series of applications. The proposed amendment would join all applications
submitted for an individual property for the purposes of determining expiration dates. The
most recent approval date would become the anniversary date for all previously approved
applications. The applicant then would only be responsible for remembering one date
rather than a series of four or five different dates.
CONCLUSION:
If it is agreed that this proposed amendment sounds like a reasonable solution to this
ongoing problem, then staff would request that it be directed to prepare and process a
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to this effect.
/pa
0
w